Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet

If you have been reading my blog, you may have already guessed that I find Lord Christopher Monckton to be a fascinating character. But given his hearty acceptance by the climate change contrarian community, as evidenced by the fact that he has TWICE been asked by Republicans to testify about climate change before committees of the U.S. Congress, I ascribe him more significance. To me, Lord Monckton is a living symbol of the fact that many climate change contrarians will believe anything that seems to support their case, even if it’s coming from the most ridiculous source. He’s the gift that keeps on giving to folks that are trying to convince the public that we need to do something about climate change. His strange behavior comes up so often, however, that it’s easy to forget the older examples. To fully appreciate Lord Monckton, you have to keep in mind the sheer volume of kookiness he produces.

With that in mind, I have created this page to collect Monckton’s entire rap sheet into one place for easy reference. I have allowed comments, so please write if you want me to update the page with a new example, or even if you want to defend him. I’ll not update the text with any charges that I don’t think are adequately backed up, however, and I have no problem linking to any responses Lord Monckton wants to post on the Internet.

[UPDATE: If you want to see who has been using Monckton as a trusted source of information, check out The Church of Monckton. UPDATE: For a compilation of rebuttals of Monckton’s favorite arguments, see Monckton Myths over at the Skeptical Science site.]

Being a “Snake Oil Salesman” Who Actually Sells the Equivalent of Snake Oil

Nobody could make this stuff up.

1. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

2. The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.” Maybe some of you physicians out there can help me interpret this, but it looks to me like Monckton is claiming that his Wonder Cure will 1) wipe out any virus without harming the patient, and 2) cure auto-immune disorders that may (or may not) have initially been triggered by a viral infection. It is unclear to me whether bacterial infections are supposed to be affected since, for instance, food poisoning could be caused by either. [UPDATE: Monckton apparently is saying the miracle cure should be effective against both viral and bacterial infections, as well as prions.]

1. Monckton represented himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the U.K. House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament.) When people started pointing out that he doesn’t appear on the official list of members, however, he started saying that he is a member “without a seat or vote.” When queried, the House of Lords responded that there is no such thing as a member without a seat or vote, and Lord Monckton had never been a member because he inherited his title (Viscount) in 2006, after all but 92 hereditary peers had been barred from membership in the House of Lords since 1999. When asked to respond about this misrepresentation by members of Congress, Monckton basically acknowledged that the British government doesn’t recognize him as a member of the House of Lords, but claimed that they’re wrong because his “Letters Patent” that granted his title to the family (and presumably mention membership in the House of Lords) had never been revoked by specific legislation. He said that the Lord President of the Council in the House of Lords had admitted that letters patent could only be annulled by specific legislation. However, Tim Lambert actually looked up what the Lord President of the Council said, and it turns out that she used the House of Lords Act 1999 as an example of legislation that altered the effect of Letters Patent. In other words, she said the exact opposite of Monckton’s claim. UPDATE: I should have mentioned that Monckton has also gone about using a logo that it quite similar to that of Parliament. Derek at Friends of Gin and Tonic sent an inquiry to the House of Lords Information Office about Monckton’s claim to be a member and his use of the logo, and they responded that, “The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.” UPDATED UPDATE: Leo Hickman at The Guardian followed up on this with the House of Lords, and found that it’s just possible Monckton could do prison time. We can only hope, but it appears that Monckton may be quietly backing down! In his latest post on the Watts Up With That? blog, Monckton has changed his logo to a gaudy coronet, rather than the gaudy coronet and pink portcullis. ANOTHER UPDATE: Monckton is still claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, and he has added the portcullis back into his logo (although with wavy chains instead of straight). Now the House has taken the step of publishing a “cease and desist” letter on their website. Full story by Leo Hickman in The Guardian. Here is a nice summary of the legal arguments that have been advanced.

2. Monckton claimed to be a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC because he supposedly sent the IPCC a letter pointing out something that needed to be corrected in a draft report. At one point he said the claim to be a Nobel laureate was all a joke, but it continued to be posted by Monckton in his bio at the Science and Public Policy Institute until early 2012, and the sorts of people who believe Monckton have often repeated the claim with a straight face. (This brings up an important question. On whom was Monckton playing the joke?)

4. One example of these dubious claims is that he was the author of “a 1200-word article for the Daily Telegraph on the reasons in international law why the Falkland Islands are British, read out on the BBC World Service’s Argentinian broadcasts every 20 minutes during the Falklands War.” George Monbiot phoned up the BBC, and they said they had never done any specifically Argentine broadcasts. Maybe Monckton was confused about who did the broadcasting, however.

5. Monckton is now claiming to be “an appointed expert reviewer for the forthcoming ‘Fifth Assessment Report’ to be published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” But all you need to do to be an “expert reviewer” is to make a self-declaration of expertise and volunteer. The IPCC doesn’t “appoint” anyone as a reviewer.

Deflating Others’ Résumés

Monckton is not only prone to artificially inflate his own credentials–he also tends to deflate others’ credentials. This makes the issue of Monckton’s qualifications that much more entertaining. Since he was a classics major and journalist, anyone who got a minor in Nutrition or Physical Therapy would automatically have more formal scientific training than him. Why would Monckton, of all people, make an issue of others’ qualifications to talk about climate science?

1. In his wonderfully batty first response to John Abraham’s critique of one of his presentations, Monckton attacked the credentials of both Prof. Abraham and the journalist George Monbiot. He explained, “All of the sciences are becoming increasingly specialized. So most ‘scientists’ – Abraham and, a fortiori, the accident-prone Monbiot among them – have no more expertise in predicting or even understanding the strange behavior of the complex, non-linear, chaotic object that is the Earth’s climate than the man on the Clapham omnibus.” He called Abraham “a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a bible-college in Minnesota,” and Monbiot “a fourteenth-rate zoologist, so his specialization has even less to do with climate science than that of Abraham.” But as Prof. Abraham later pointed out, the physical processes he studies (fluid mechanics and heat transfer) and some of the techniques he uses (numerical simulation) are the same ones climatologists use to understand climate. So while he isn’t a climatologist, his professional background does help him understand clearly what the climatologists are saying. (This is a particularly good thing, e.g., if you are looking up scientific papers Monckton cites to see if he has represented their content correctly. See the next section.) Furthermore, he works at the University of St. Thomas, which is a Catholic University with graduate programs, rather than a “Bible College,” and Prof. Abraham has extensively published his research. I have never seen George Monbiot bring up the fact that he has a Master’s degree in Zoology from Oxford in any discussion of climate, but like I said, any degree in science is better than none if you want to brandish credentials.

2. Five scientists (including me) recruited over 20 world-class experts in various climate-related specialties to respond to Monckton’s 2010 testimony to Congress. Monckton responded by dismissing all of the experts because of “Climategate.” Apparently, even if you were only mentioned in those stolen e-mails, that means you are now discredited! He attacked the organizers because most of us aren’t climate specialists, but, um… that’s why we recruited all those experts.

Misrepresenting Scientific Literature

1. John Abraham pointed out a large number of examples where Monckton cited scientific literature that actually refuted his points, or the authors of the papers said that Monckton had misinterpreted their results. This caused His Lordship to FLIP OUT. See “Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him” and “Going Ape” below.

2. Tim Lambert caught Monckton making up stories about one Dr. Pinker, and it turns out that Dr. Pinker says Monckton misinterpreted her work. And is a woman. (Click the link. You’ll see what I mean.)

6. Monckton published an article on climate sensitivity in a newsletter of the American Physical Society. He has repeatedly claimed that this constitutes a peer-reviewed scientific publication about climate change, but the fact is that society newsletters are not typically “peer-reviewed” in any normal sense, and the newsletter editor appended a notice on Monckton’s article saying it was not peer-reviewed. A single scientist associated with the journal (and not a climate specialist) giving you some comments on a draft isn’t the same thing. Almost 2 years later, Monckton was still claiming the newsletter is peer-reviewed scientific literature, however. In any case, Arthur Smith picked this article apart and found 125 errors of fact and logic. Tim Lambert provided a short explanation for why Monckton’s main argument was wrong.

7. Lord Monckton really wants the Medieval Warm Period to have been warmer than today, and will latch onto any piece of “evidence” that seems to support this. For example, he wrote that “There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.” He apparently got this claim from Gavin Menzies, but it has been shown to be complete garbage.

8. A New York Times reporter fact-checked Monckton after a debate by asking experts in the relevant fields to comment. The experts said that Monckton was in fantasyland about polar bear populations and global temperature histories. As an aside, I mentioned above that I had shown Monckton tended to erroneously use local temperature records in place of global ones, which is another thing he was criticized for in the Times.

10. Skeptical Science has now posted Monckton Myths, a page that collects links to all of Monckton’s main pseudo-scientific arguments, and scientific rebuttals. Since Monckton recycles his arguments ad nauseum, long after they have been shown to be flatly wrong, this should be a valuable resource for many years!

Making Up Fake Data

1. Lord Monckton made up data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature that he claimed were IPCC predictions. The CO2 projections were similar to the real ones, but significantly corrupted, and the temperature projections were the product of inputting the corrupted data into an equation not meant for this purpose. This has been addressed several times by Gavin Schmidt, John Nielsen-Gammon, Lucia Liljegren, and me. After I posted my critique, Monckton issued a blanket response to all those who criticized him for this, in which he claimed he was justified in attributing the fake projections to the IPCC, because that’s what they SHOULD HAVE gotten if they had done theirs right. I’m not kidding.

Abusing Scientific Equations

It doesn’t take much effort to plug some numbers into a scientific equation and solve it. Scientists have to learn to plug the right numbers into equations appropriate for the problem at hand, and it usually requires considerable experience for this principle to sink into students’ brains. Before it sinks in, students often tend to use the wrong equations for a given scenario, or plug the wrong kinds of values into the right equations. Monckton does both.

2. Monckton made some wild claims about climate drivers after he misinterpreted the work of Rachel Pinker and colleagues. He essentially plugged the wrong kind of numbers into an equation that converts a change in radiative forcing into change in global mean temperature.

3. He frequently uses an IPCC equation for the EQUILIBRIUM temperature response of climate models to calculate TRANSIENT temperature response. The IPCC publishes the transient responses, as well, but Monckton refuses to use that data, because he says the IPCC has monkeyed with their models to make the transient response agree better with global temperature data. In the past he has just substituted in the equilibrium values and plotted them as if they were time-series. However, in response to criticism he says he’s going to correct the equilibrium values–seemingly by multiplying them by a factor of 0.8 instead of looking at the actual model output.

Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him

1. Monckton has threatened to instigate academic misconduct investigations and/or libel suits against several professors who have exposed his misrepresentations. The list so far includes Naomi Oreskes, John Abraham, and myself. He has even threatened a libel suit against John Abraham. UPDATE: Monckton has now threatened to extend the libel suit to include Scott Mandia. Here is Scott’s reply. UPDATE: John Abraham tells me that Monckton has threatened lawsuits against him several more times, and Monckton has also threatened me, once again. He also wrote my university administration to tell them I was mentally imbalanced, and that I had been sending him “hate mail”. Well, at least the second part is false. 😉 UPDATE: Monckton keeps claiming (to others) on the Internet that he is going to sic his lawyers on me for Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet, but miraculously, I haven’t been contacted by his lawyers, either.

2. He tried to get Tony Press (U. Tasmania) fired. UPDATE: Monckton also lodged a complaint at a New Zealand university against professors Jonathan Boston, David Frame, and Jim Renwick for “academic fraud” and libel. The university investigated the complaint, then blew it off. But before the verdict was in, Monckton threatened to sic the police on the university if they were to… you know… blow him off. I’m sure the police have an entire unit on the case as I write this.

3. When a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Lawrence Torcello, wrote an article saying it ought to be against the law to knowingly spread disinformation about climate change for profit, Monckton led the charge to send letters to the university administration asking for Torcello to be disciplined/fired because Torcello was allegedly attacking free speech and academic freedom.

5. Now Monckton is even threatening his fellow climate contrarians (Leif Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbach) with lawsuits and trying to get them fired from academic jobs. And he’s probably threatening to threaten me, again. We’ll see. UPDATE: Svalgaard hasn’t heard back from Monckton.

6. He launched a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission in the UK against The Guardian because of a column George Monbiot wrote about Monckton’s antics. The PCC threw out the complaint. In a bizarre twist, George Monbiot reported that someone claiming to be Monckton and using Monckton’s IP address had tried to edit his Wikipedia page to falsely claim that he had won a £50,000 settlement from The Guardian because of Monbiot’s article.

7. Monckton lobbed threats against Arthur Smith after Arthur objected that Monckton (and the Science and Public Policy Institute) had violated copyright. Smith had written a rebuttal of one of Monckton’s articles, and was trying to get it published. Monckton put the entire thing up on the web along with his comments, and altered the article to imply that Smith had written it at the behest of his employer, the American Physical Society, which was not true. Arthur prevailed after threatening legal action, because he was clearly in the right.

8. John Mashey pointed out an instance where one contrarian had plagiarized from Monckton (and cited papers that had been challenged and withdrawn), and then Monckton turned around and praised the work. When Richard Littlemore reported this, Monckton left a comment on the page saying that Mashey was “under investigation” for breaching “doctor-patient confidentiality,” and that he was guilty of “interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere.” To this day, I don’t think anyone has any idea what Monckton was talking about.

10. Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe wrote an open letter to Exxon-Mobile, urging them to stop funding climate-contrarian “think-tanks,” whose tactics resemble those of the tobacco industry, Lord Monckton wrote an open letter to the senators, in which he said, “In the circumstances, your comparison of Exxon’s funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold.” Ok, so this isn’t really a threat, but Monckton’s language is so bombastic and filled with fake moral outrage that it almost feels like a threat. I should note that 1) in his letter, Monckton falsely claimed to be a member of Parliament, and 2) Naomi Oreskes, a prominent science historian, and Erik Conway, have shown that not only do the most prominent organizations fighting mainstream climate science follow the same playbook as the tobacco industry, but it’s often the SAME organizations and people doing the fighting on both fronts!

11. Monckton launched yet another complaint to the Press Complaints Commission against New Scientist magazine, which had the temerity to point out that Monckton’s article on climate sensitivity in an American Physical Society newsletter was not peer-reviewed, among other things. Of course, the editor had specifically noted that the newsletter is not a peer-reviewed publication, but Monckton said he had the article critiqued by a “Professor of Physics,” i.e., someone who isn’t a climate specialist. The complaint was not upheld.

12. His Lordship complained to Ofcom, the British regulator for TV and radio programming, that he had been unfairly treated by the producers of the BBC documentary, Earth: The Climate Wars. Ofcom found that the show’s producers should have given more information to Monckton upfront about the nature of the program (even though Monckton expressed familiarity with how the BBC had covered the issue in the past.) However, they found that the lack of informed consent did not result in any misrepresentation of Monckton’s views by unfair editing. The complaint summary linked above is a fascinating read, if you have about 15 minutes.

13. Monckton threatened to have IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri jailed for fraud because he used an IPCC graph that turns out to be correct, but misleading. In his letter to Pachauri, however, His Lordship used a temperature graph that had already been shown by several scientists to be blatantly fabricated. I’m sure Monckton is on his way to Scotland Yard right now to give himself up.

14. The BBC aired a documentary called “Meet the Climate Sceptics” which apparently focused largely on Lord Monckton. (Click here to see the trailer.) In fact Monckton unsuccessfully attempted to have the courts stop the BBC from airing it unless they allowed him to insert a 3 minute video rebuttal into the program.

15. The ABC (Australia) aired a rather stunning gutting of Monckton and his crowd. Journalist Wendy Carlisle brought up several instances where Monckton’s sources contradicted him, the fact that he falsely claims to be a member of Parliament, his miracle cure-all, and more. So of course, Monckton threatened to sue unless given airtime to reply. They blew him off, and Monckton filed a complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, but the ACMA found that the ABC report did not violate its standards for impartiality and factual accuracy.

16. Monckton threatened to have Al Gore jailed when Gore gave a speech in Gibraltar . “If you come to any British territory and you talk the rubbish you’ve been talking elsewhere, then you will be arrested and prosecuted.”

17. The Gibraltar Chronicle printed a redacted version of a letter Monckton wrote. When Monckton’s PR guy threatened them with legal action unless they printed an unredacted version, the Chronicle told them to shove off, because the parts they took out were probably libelous. The Chronicle article about the bullying incident seems to have been taken down, now, but I have a PDF copy.)

18. Monckton threatened William Connolley and Kevin O’Neill for suggesting that he created a graph that was included (and referenced) in a newspaper article written by His Lordship. Then he threatened the proprietors of the VisionLearning site, which also made the same attribution.

Lord Monckton is famous for going about publicly challenging Al Gore to debate about climate change. Al Gore ignores him, because Monckton is, relatively speaking, a big, fat nobody, so what does Gore have to gain by it? Nevertheless, it gives His Lordship an excuse to crow about how Gore is too afraid to debate him. Yet another reason for avoiding live debates with Monckton is that he is a master of the Gish Gallop–overwhelming the opponent with a torrent of short, but spurious arguments that cannot possibly be addressed in the allotted time. But what if someone with reasonable credentials were to agree to debate Monckton in a different format–say, one in which one had time to check sources? Brave Sir Monckton runs away every time.

1. Monckton’s handler, Bob Ferguson, once tried to browbeat a number of scientists (including me) at my university to debate Monckton. Everyone refused, except me. I told him that I wouldn’t do a live debate, but I would do a written debate in which we could check one another’s sources. Bob at first told me that sounded reasonable, but when I brought it up later he gave me a flat “No.”

2. Peter Hadfield, an experienced science journalist, made a series of videos documenting a number of spurious claims made by Monckton. Monckton posted a “response” on Anthony Watts’ blog, but then Anthony also let Hadfield post a rebuttal, in which he provided video evidence that Monckton really had said a number of things he claimed he hadn’t. Monckton refused to debate further.

Monckton once threw down the gauntlet for Gore, thusly. “I want you to face me in a debate about global warming, and if you don’t dare, I want you to remain silent about that subject forever, from now on.” Being the stand-up guy he is, I’m sure His Lordship will get around to shutting his yap about the subject pretty soon.

1. He accused NASA of crashing its own satellite so it wouldn’t have to deal with more data that contradicts the scientific consensus about climate change.

2. Monckton claimed that a treaty would be ratified at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that would “impose a communist world government on the world.”

3. After the BP oil spill disaster, Monckton went on CNBC claiming that Pres. Obama has some sort of vendetta against BP because he hates the United Kingdom. What’s the evidence? Well, Obama has repeatedly referred to BP as “British Petroleum”. Which is, well, what “BP” originally stood for. Note that he wasn’t just saying that Obama was using the fact that BP is based in the UK to score political points, pass the buck, or whatever. He was claiming that Obama HATES the U.K., and mentioned some rumor about Obama’s Kenyan ancestors being mistreated by the Brits.

4. After Monckton and his allies went about crowing that his article in an APS newsletter was “peer-reviewed,” the APS started appending notices on all its newsletter articles stating they are not peer-reviewed. Monckton claimed it was all a Communist plot. Marxist, to be precise.

5. Monckton apparently subscribes to one of the “Birther” conspiracy theories, claiming that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fake. He hasn’t yet explained how birth announcements for Obama made it into a couple Honolulu newspapers in 1961, but I’m sure such nagging little details will be explained in due course.

6. When Monckton visited Gibraltar, he claimed he applied for a press pass so he could attend a talk by Al Gore, but the Government Press Office had made “two maladroit attempts to lose his application.” The Press Office countered that they had received only one application from Monckton, and even though it was two days past the deadline, they gave him one, anyway.

1. Some young environmentalist protesters in Copenhagen started chanting and disrupting some meeting Monckton was involved with. Monckton later called these people “Hitler Youth,” even though some were Jewish. Ok, so I would be annoyed about the protesters, too, but when asked about the incident, Monckton denied to an AP reporter that he had been the one to make that comment. But, um… someone had already posted the video on YouTube.

2. Monckton gave a speech at Utah Valley University, in which he said that a group of local scientists (including me) were “trying to impose the same kind of tyranny as Hitler.” When some of us called him on this during an e-mail exchange, he said he didn’t recall having compared us to Nazis.

3. In a speech given at the 2011 Big Footprint Conference, sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance, Monckton gave a long tirade about “eco-fascists”, and compared them to Hitler. (He also flashed up slides with quotations by various accused “eco-fascists” next to a large Nazi flag.) Obviously, there are people who think Democracy can’t deal with a problem like climate change and should move to a more totalitarian form of government, but His Lordship was rather free with his Nazi analogies. E.g., Prof. Ross Garnaut, an Australian economist who wrote a government report on dealing with climate change, said that people who don’t know anything about climate science have no rational choice but to accept what the experts say about it. Of course, for Monckton this sentiment is radically anti-Democratic, but the fact is that Prof. Garnaut was simply encouraging people to be rational. To everyone but the tinfoil hat crowd, summarily rejecting the consensus of scientific experts without knowing what you are talking about is, well… irrational.

Being an All-Purpose Extremist

1. It’s a good thing Monckton has developed a cure for AIDS! In 1987 he suggested rounding up all AIDS-sufferers and isolating them for life. Since nobody took his sage advice, he later acknowledged that the problem had gotten too big for his suggestion to be feasible.

2. Monckton suggested it might be a good idea to require scientists to have some kind of religious certification before being allowed to practice in a field like climatology. You know, because scientists are a pack of atheists who think lying is ok.

3. Monckton claimed that, as a member of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, he suggested spiking the Argentines’ water supplies with a “mild bacillus” so the British troops could more easily win the Falklands War. He said he believed Thatcher had followed his advice, even though this would clearly have been a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

Lord Monckton has repeatedly accused scientists and others of lies, fraud, and conspiracy to impose a Communist world government. He routinely calls people who disagree with him “bed-wetters,” “zombies,” and “Hitler Youth” (see above.) Well, fine. However, nobody likes the kid who can dish it out, but can’t take it. (If you want to see an amazing string of epithets that came from Monckton’s mouth in a single talk, click here. It’s astonishing!)

1. When John Abraham posted an exceptionally mild-mannered, careful critique of one of Monckton’s presentations, His Lordship complained that, “so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.” Watch Abraham’s presentation, then read Monckton’s response (heck, just read the passage I just quoted,) and decide for yourself whose language was “venomous,” and whose arguments were ad hominem.

2. When I charged, in an e-mail conversation involving Monckton and a number of local scientists, that Monckton had 1) told falsehoods about his personal circumstances for monetary gain (see above), 2) told falsehoods about being a member of Parliament (see above), and 3) made up data to discredit the IPCC (see above), he said, “I do not propose to answer any further ad-hominem points, and, as I have explained, I shall not answer any points from anyone who continues to assert ad-hominem arguments against me. No further communications from this email address will be answered, therefore. – Monckton of Brenchley.” But as Richard Littlemore pointed out, if the issue is Monckton’s credibility, it isn’t ad hominem to point out that he routinely makes things up.

3. After reading the section above on Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies, consider the following. The really odd thing (until you come to expect mushroom clouds of flaming hypocrisy from Monckton) is that he is one of those people who goes around complaining about being called a “denier”, because it’s “hate speech”. You know, because people talk about “Holocaust deniers,” and so if someone calls you a “climate denier” they must mean to imply that you are a Nazi. It’s a great way to play victim to change the subject. Now, I happen to avoid it myself, but the word “denial” is a generic psychological term that goes back at least to Sigmund Freud. It has been applied to any number of issues, so while it is certainly insulting to call someone a “denier”, there is no reason to interpret it as a Nazi comparison, unless it is explicitly stated. And as I mentioned above, Monckton is quite free about explicitly comparing people he doesn’t like to Nazis.

Going Ape

Lord Monckton has largely been ignored or dismissed by scientists in the past because, after all, how could anyone take him seriously (see above)? But we have been astonished to find out that he has been taken seriously by some very powerful people–U.S. Senators and Representatives, for example–and my sense is that the vacation is over. A number of scientists have begun systematically picking apart his scientific arguments (see above). This does not sit well with someone who thinks he is a super-genius who has single-handedly gutted the entire field of climatology and invented a miracle cure-all (among other things.) So when the pressure is on, Monckton can really lose it.

1. The University of St. Thomas unequivocally told Monckton to take a flying leap when he was campaigning to get them to launch an academic investigation against John Abraham, who had critiqued one of Monckton’s presentations. Monckton went on Alex Jones’s show and called Abraham a “wretched little man,” the University of St. Thomas a “half-assed Catholic Bible College,” and the President of the University (Father Dease) a “creep.” He also said the Archbishop of St. Paul (who oversees the University) was “probably so busy sorting out the problems with little boys that he hasn’t got time to deal with this one.” Don’t worry, Catholic readers! Monckton is a Catholic himself, so his comments can’t possibly be construed as bigoted!

Falsely accused John Abraham of ad hominem attacks, while making vicious ad hominem attacks of his own.

“So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.”

And here’s another of the dodgy claims in his CV:

“Author of a 1200-word article for the Daily Telegraph on the reasons in international law why the Falkland Islands are British, read out on the BBC World Service’s Argentinian broadcasts every 20 minutes during the Falklands War.”

I phoned the BBC World Service. They do not have an Argentinian service, and have never made specifically “Argentinian broadcasts”. There was, however, an entirely separate organisation set up by Thatcher’s government to beam propaganda into Argentina during the Falklands war, called Radio Atlantico del Sur. It had nothing to do with the BBC. The idea that it might have read out Monckton’s essay every 20 minutes is entirely plausible: I can’t think of a better means of demoralising the enemy.

Maybe the Koch Brothers pay him. They are the kinpins of climate science denial. And now I found out that the use charity groups like The Donors Trust to funnel money into climate science denial. And the kicker is that they get a tax break for donating to a charity group! you couldn’t write fiction like this!

Having recently criticized the science (or more accurately the lack of it) in one of Monckton’s posts recently… I have see very directly how he responds…. In addition to the very strange “it puts the lotion on it’s skin” way of wring about me (over an over) he unleashed wave after wave of ad hominem attacks…On average 8 per post…. calling me everything from a communist (numerous times) to a whore….

“CLASSY”

I didn’t know who this guy was (or wwho he thought he was either) and so I did some searches…. His science… Isn’t science…. and I styarted wondering why somebody would repeatedly do that and dug up the information on him getting paid by the Heartland Institute…

I then set about to ask hime very directly the question….
——————————————
Have you, or any legal entity you control, accepted money from the Heartland Institute in 2013 or 2014?

YES ___ NO ___
——————————————-

He refused to answer 15 times in a row… each time sending a barrage of name calling with each refusal…..

What he forgot, is that by protesting and writhing SO…. much.. he actually answered teh question, and very clearly gave him self away as a paid shill for Big Oil/Gas/Coal lobbys and a a charlatan, willing to seel anyone out for a buck….

I APPLAUD what you have done, and will spread this link far and wide…

PS: You should do a similar “rap sheet” on Tom Harris from the “ICSC” I have asked that same question to him 20 times… and he slithers off each time…

“In the circumstances, your comparison of Exxon’s funding of sceptical scientists and
groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any
credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or
resign so as not to pollute the office you hold.”

– but the problem is it’s not a “spot”, and it’s not “hot”. It’s possible somebody else coined the phrase first, and certainly other people pointed to the missing amplification as an issue with climate models. But Monckton’s use seemed to start a much wider dissemination of the meme among denialists (Jo Nova’s “Skeptics Handbook” emphasizes it for instance).

Now I’m sure it’s Monckton who started this meme. I’ve just been running some Google searches on “hot spot”, climate, and troposphere, by date. The term “hot spot” does not appear anywhere in this context before September 2007. There are many matches to the query, but they all refer to actual higher temperature regions on the surface, or small regions that are “hot” because of some other special significance (species diversity or something) – or occasionally spots in the atmosphere of other planets. Nowhere can I find the term referring to tropospheric amplification until the following PDF shows up in September 2007:

Where Monckton has already mangled the IPCC’s figure 9.1 to his own interpretation (he either completely misunderstood or misrepresented the surrounding text on what the “fingerprint” of greenhouse gas warming was – stratospheric cooling while the surface warms):

“This instantly-recognizable “hot-spot” on the altitude-versus-latitude plot of predicted rates of temperature change is the unmistakable signature or characteristic fingerprint of greenhouse warming which we have been looking for.”

No it isn’t, actually. But Monckton’s characterization here seems to have launched thousands of copycats. I wonder how many are aware of the source of their misunderstanding?

Monckton may be the author of the “hot spot” expression, but my guess is Richard Lindzen originally provided the argument and Monckton picked it up and ran with it. In the dubiously titled “Taking greenhouse warming seriously”, Energy & Environment 18 (2007), nos. 7-8, Lindzen described the higher warming aloft in the tropics as “the signature (or fingerprint) of greenhouse
warming.” This fits the dates of your internet search.

[…] to investigate whether Monckton is “a fraud”? I mean, what has he done (aside from pretending to be a member of Parliament, making up data, butchering nearly every scientific topic he…)? Well, His Lordship wasn’t having any of that! Here’s what he wrote in an e-mail […]

[…] note the evidence assembled by Professor Barry Bickmore of Brigham Young University in Utah on his Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet page. One item will suffice: In a letter to the US Congress Monckton represented himself as a […]

Wow Barry, great work here.
Actually, at the end, where you say that the scientific community largely ignored Monckton – this was my main reason for getting into blogging.
Within my working history, climate change is a given.. It was when Chris did a tour of Aust around the start of the year and some family members shot down my work, based on Monckton that I realised outside of work the perception was radically different.
I know of some interaction between Dr. Glikson and Monckton – http://www.scribd.com/doc/25813090/Responses-to-Monckton-of-Brenchley-10-1-10

Nice article. One thing I’d suggest adding is the fact he advocates a frankly insane degree of political interference in science. See the linked article, where he also openly denies that excess salt intake doesn’t pose a general health risk.

Great list. I know you covered the “Nobel Peace Laureate” claim, and its mention in the SPPI blurb (below) definitely does not read like a “joke”, but there are other claims which look unlikely, especially the one on warship hydrodynamics. I wonder how we can find out? It’s pretty amazing that he’s not been a national hero for the last 3 decades!

Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: — Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986, and gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis (leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury’s economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system), and epidemiological analysis. On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. His two articles in the Sunday Telegraph late in 2006 debunking the climate-change “consensus” received more hits to the newspaper’s website than any other in the paper’s history: the volume of hits caused the link to crash. His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA. He has lectured at university physics departments on the quantification of climate sensitivity, on which he is widely recognized as an expert, and his limpid analysis of the climate-feedback factor was published on the famous climate blog of Roger Pielke, Sr. His lecture to undergraduates at the Cambridge Union Society on climate change has been released by SPPI as Apocalypse? NO!, a full-length feature movie on high-definition DVD (available from http://www.greatswindle.com). Apocalypse? NO! been described by Professor Larry Gould of the University of Hartford, Connecticut, “as one of the best films ever made…”

Apologies if you’ve covered all these, directly or indirectly, but perhaps it might be handy to have the full SPPI blurb quoted here.

Well, the whole thing with warship hydrodynamics is highly classified, you know. It’s no wonder that nobody else has ever mentioned this particular act of genius. Ah, the sacrifices such secret heroes make for Queen and country!

Was the APS piece peer-reviewed. Monckton sent it to Al Saperstein for comments:

He stressed that that the article was not sent to anyone for peer-reviewing. Saperstein himself edited it. “I’m a little ticked off that some people have claimed that this was peer-reviewed,” he said. “It was not.”

every icicle that falls in
Greenland is paraded as an omen of imminent doom: and, as for the crooked pseudo-scientists who
invented the hockey stick, supported it, and continue to parade it in the mendacious documents of the
IPCC, no journalist would dare to ask any of them the questions that would expose their self-seeking
corruption for what it is. These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical
manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than “global warming” will ever
kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less
than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their
corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he.

[…] Monckton Files: The Investigation Begins!!! [Maniacal laughter.] After threatening everyone under the Sun with libel lawsuits and academic investigations, Lord Christopher Monckton might just be getting his. Friends of Gin and Tonic has just posted a […]

[…] (unless you become an addict like me.) A good place to start looking at what others have found is Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Lord Monckton: 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, King of […]

Great stuff, but in the interests of accuracy it’s worth nothing that BP does not stand for British Petroleum. The name BP may derive from the fact that British Petroleum is the former name (in full) of the same entity, but in so much as BP’s official name is simply ‘BP plc’, then BP does not actually ‘stand for’ anything. BP has not been known as British Petroleum since 1999. Obama was using a former name, not the company’s full name.

Yep, it says that on the Wikipedia page I linked. I guess I’m one of those stubborn types that kept calling Prince “Prince” even after he adopted a non-alphabetic symbol as his stage name and started going by “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince”. In any case, I’m perfectly willing to believe that Obama was using “British Petroleum” to score cheap political points by emphasizing that it wasn’t an American company. The idea that it’s evidence he has this seething hatred of the British is just bonkers, however.

Indeed, great stuff, and sorry to be picky but accuracy is really important when dealing with someone else’s gross inaccuracies. British Petroleum is not the former name of the same entity. British Petroleum changed as an entity in 1998 when it merged with Amoco, hence the change of name. Castrol and ARCO are also part now of BP.

Thanks, guys. I do think Obama badly mishandled or misjudged the situation in purely political terms by referring to BP as British Petroleum, and I wouldn’t like oversight of the distinction here to feed sympathy for Monckton’s rubbish. Keep up the good work.

The reason he used ‘British Petroleum’ is that ‘BP’ lacks the gravitas that the situation required.

Using ‘BP’ would be like trying to talk sternly when disciplining a child, but using the child’s nickname. You don’t call the kid “Jonny”, you call the kid “Jonathan”, possibly even adding the middle name, and maybe the surname as well.

Had the original name been ‘Brooklyn Petroleum’ or ‘Bentley Petroleum’ those would have been used. The only significance of the ‘British’ is that it was the prior name of the firm and correlates to the B in BP.

If you look at the IPO records on longer time scales, Monckton actually has filed four patents, two of them in October 2008 and another two in October 2009.

I stumbled across a curiosity here. Getting a patent granted is a lengthy multi-step process. The application guide spells it out, here is a simplified version of the initial steps:
1) file form 1 “Request for grant of a patent”
2) in response the IPO sends application number and filing date
3) file form 9A, a request for a search, which kicks off the preliminary examination
4) After the search is completed, the application is published such that outsiders can review it and file objections, usually 18 months after the initial filing in step 1

Step 1) is associated with a fee of 30 GBP. Step 3) costs 100 GBP and more. Both fees need to be paid for the forms to be processed and usually at latest within 12 months of the initial filing date; otherwise the application is considered to be withdrawn and is terminated.

So technically “filing a patent” is nothing more than filling in form 1 and sending it to the IPO, either paying the fee with the filing or not. Note that for the first two patents from October 2008 the 18 month period to publication mentioned in the guide ran out in February 2010, yet to the best of my knowledge these two patents have not been published. I speculate that either something is holding up the patents much longer than usual inside the IPO or Monckton has withdrawn them either actively or by not following them up. However, it would cost 25 GBP or more to find out at the IPO, money I do not intend to invest.

The perception that his Lordship is an attention monger cannot be understated.

I once sent an E-mail supporting John Abraham with a forwarding to Monckton and was surprised to receive a response back from Monckton.

I recently sent him an E-mail with a poem about his participation in the Global Warming issue. He responded within 20 minutes! Went so far as to criticize the manner in which I wrote it.

I have noticed that his Lordship also seems to keep vigil over any website that may mention him and quickly responds when they do. I actually witnessed, in real time, the events when John Abraham’s response was posted on Skeptical Science and Monckton quickly dropped in with his usual vituperative charm.

Now you’re just making me feel bad–Monckton hasn’t responded to anything I’ve said for months! Of course, he swore never to answer anything I bring up since I engage in ad hominem argumentation. (I.e., I said people shouldn’t believe proven liars.) Maybe his sense of noblesse oblige is preventing him from commenting here.

Thanks very much to you, Barry, and to all the contributors who are helping to extend the rap sheet!

There is a well-established strain in British life of the ‘eccentric Peer’, which Lord Monckton could be counted as part of – if he kept it to breeding butterflies and beating the occasional peasant, I guess. But he is, sadly, being taken seriously. More power to your elbow. I have done my little bit by blogging about it…on a blog I’d forgotten about until some denialists reminded me of it!

On the matter of advising Margaret Thatcher – I recall that Monckton claimed to have advised her and the SAS to use germ warfare during the Falklands conflict – not intended to be lethal but even “mild bacillus” can kill the vulnerable. Anyone who advises ignoring treaties on biological warfare clearly has no understanding of unintended consequences. Well, I guess we knew that given his views on GHG emissions.

[…] I predict that Lord Monckton will still be a shameless liar in the coming months. Ok, so maybe it isn’t such a bold prediction. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The Monckton Files: Solar VariationLord […]

Regarding Monckton’s habit of threatning with lawsuits all over the place, how about his promise to have IPCC chairman Pachauri sued for having conflicts of interest (which were proven false, ofcourse, by accountancy firm KPMG)? Anyone have information if he really put the complaint forward and what the status of his complaint is?

The announcement of Monckton filing a complaint to the Indian police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_vqvJLDsJk
An hilarious video, typical of Monckton. The interviewer Theo Richel, an active Dutch libertarian propagandist, swallowed every bogus statement in the interview without any skepticism ofcourse. He reported about it on his website, url in the credits of the video (no need to push up his Google rank by providing a hyperlink).

I liked this one, but most of it was about Pachauri’s use of the graph in the front of the IPCC Report that seems to show accelerating warming. I happen to think that Monckton is right that the particular trendlines pictured are cherry-picked. Anyway, since it’s not as clear-cut as the other examples, I don’t think I’ll put it on the Rap Sheet. People will be able to look at it from the Comments section, though.

I have a suggestion to make.. The first item on our “Lord”, on all threads mentioning his background, should be the expose of his snake oil cure.

This will get the immediate attention of the casual, curious reader who has dropped in to read this site. The general public may not be really interested in a debate about aristocratic titles and may stop reading after the first few sentences.

Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe wrote an open letter to Exxon-Mobile, urging them to stop funding climate-contrarian “think-tanks,” whose tactics resemble those of the tobacco industry . . .

Um, that would be “John D. Rockefeller IV,” the official, family-decided carrier of the families most valued product, the name John D. Rockefeller — you know, the guy who founded Standard Oil, parts of which became Standards Oil of New Jersey, then Exxon, and Mobil.

Monckton doesn’t think John D. Rockefeller IV knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Exxon?

For me, the absolute howler that stand head and shoulders above anything else is this:
“Schmidt does not rebut my point that the computer models upon which the UN’s climate panel unwisely founds its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major events in the real climate. The models had not projected […] the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;”

Climate models failing because they did not predict warming on Pluto? We know that ex-planet only for enough time to have completed about 1/3 of it’s orbit around the Sun!

Oh, that’s just beautiful. Solar radiation is one of the DRIVERS of climate models, not something they are meant to predict. No wonder he calls them “X-box 360 models.” He wouldn’t know the difference if it bit him in the butt.

[…] many times and has been repeatedly shown the errors of his ways. In fact, Monckton has quite a long rap sheet. What makes this latest report so damning for Monckton is that he gave his testimony under oath […]

[…] this post on climate scientists finally replying in detail to Monckton’s misinformation and Barry Bickmore’s Monckton’s rap sheet for more) yet, we find no shortage of parrots to his absurd UN-Communistic-One-World-Government […]

In his Minnesota appearance in October of last year, Monckton stated, “There has been global cooling for the last eight or nine years, statistically significant and rapid cooling.”

Seven months later, in his “Monthly CO2 Report” for SPPI, he conceded, “The University of Alabama at Huntsville’s recently-revised satellite record since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001…shows a slight warming trend in global temperatures over the decade.”

Good point. I probably won’t elevate this one up to the main text, though, because you never know which data Monckton is using. The SPPI Temperature Index is an average of a couple data sets, and it used to be more. Who knows what cherry-picked period might have a statistically significant slope.

I’ve been waiting for the next monthly report for some time, now! I’m itching to see if he keeps using the crown logo instead of the portcullis and crown after he blustered about how the House of Lords and Buckingham Palace had no case against him.

[…] Michael Crichton, as an expert witness before his Environment and Public Works Committee? Why use a discredited political performer, and propagandist, one Lord Viscount Monckton of Benchley, as a climate science adviser and expert […]

[…] Michael Crichton, as an expert witness before his Environment and Public Works Committee? Why use a discredited political performer, and propagandist, one Lord Viscount Monckton of Benchley, as a climate science adviser and expert […]

There is so so much to read here, I haven’t gotten to it all. So I’ll keep it short by asking, did I skip over anybody who said Lord Monckton is dragged around the world by the Koch Borthers’ ‘Americans For Prosperity’ organization to put on his climate denial seminars?

[…] I knew that “Lord” Christopher Monckton, the darling of climate change deniers writing to the Cairns Post was a crackpot (and a liar and fraud), but I didn’t know he was a quackpot too. (If you want a good summary of Monckton’s climate change denial antics, click here) […]

Lord Chris Monckton (not 100% sure if I should call him a Lord or not) participated in a debate at the National Press Club in Australia on 19/07/2011. When asked about the cease and desist letter the House of Lords had sent him about his claims to be a member he had the following exchange after handing his passport to the moderator (with thanks to the Sydney Morning Herald for the quotes):

Monckton: “Sir, would you be kind enough to read out the words in this box on this passport page?”
Moderator: “The holder is the right honourable Christopher Walter Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.”
Monckton thanks him.
Monckton: ”The House of Lords says I am not a member of it. My passport says I am. Get used to it!”

So he it still trying it on. Mind you in Australia there are quite a few radio “shock jocks” who still give Monckton a platform, which is fine form a free speech point of view, but the degree of this seems to be at adds with his credibility. The same “shock jocks” denigrate anyone supporting the case for AGW making it difficult for well-respected scientists to get an airing without being absolutely put down and treated with a great deal of disrespect. This is why I think when dealing with AGW climate change skeptics it’s important not to follow the same path but to argue purely on the science and the evidence supporting it.

If you’re next question is why is Australia still giving Lord Monckton such a national platform, well, there is still big debate down here and support for action on climate change has actually decreased according to the main polling organisations.

The government has just announced the introduction of a carbon tax that will change to an ETS in a few years. This will be on the top 500 polluters but is effectively economy wide which is a world first as I understand it. It will start in July next year but the government has been smashed in the opinion polls since announcing it (although there are other factors feeding into this). This is despite most respected sound and rational economists and scientists supporting it. There is no bi-partisanship on it with the main opposition party and a huge disinformation/scare campaign against it. The next election is 2 years away however and hopefully the tide can be turned between now and then otherwise the main oppostion party has vowed to overturn it if they get in. I should say for the record that the main opposition party aren’t against action on AGW (although there is some doubt about whether the leader of the party actually believes in it). They do have a plan to reduce CO2 output by paying the major polluters from taxpayers money to reduce their carbon output. Not something that is credible in a market economy.

Excuse my extended post I really only meant to post on the bit about the House Of Lords but thought I would give a “Down Under” view.

[…] Wendy Carlisle's Background Briefing episode. This isn't really that interesting, Monckton has also threatened to sue Al Gore, John Abraham, Scott Mandia, The Guardian, as well threatening to jail Raj…. None of these threats […]

Thank you for this marvellous link. His Lordship is currently visiting Australia and with embarrassment I have to report that he is taken seriously in many quarters here.

I and some other rationalists are fighting a losing battle in countering the fawning adulation of Monckton by his acolytes on Andrew Bolt’s website, who are constantly demanding one, just one, example of where His Lordship has been shown to be in error.

We have posted this link , Peter Sinclair’s marvelous clips on Monckton, Skeptical Science and other sources, only to be completely ignored or to have such sources dismissed out of hand as nests of warmist propaganda.

I don’t know why I bother but as a scientist I can’t let this travesty of science go unchallenged. I am also deeply disturbed by the ferocious attacks on scientists, including death threats, and scientific institutions in this country.

Philip,
As a fellow scientist and a keen Aussie blogger, I can totally sympathise. However, I’ve since learnt that there is in reality no real difference between Monckton and his flock and Bolt with his, I’ve simply had to ignore those outlets.
The worst for me was a post of Bolt’s where he advocated extinction as of low concern.
You will not be able to reason with such people. Indeed, I too would refer to Potholers videos – even if they just look at the section where Pinker has her response to Monckton’s use of her work read out to him – that’s irrefutable.
Still, you’re talking about a man he disregards the Climate Scientist’s review of his report to the US congress because he doesn’t like Prof. Abraham, there’s an endless attack on Mann regarding the hacked emails (regardless how often it’s been investigated and shown that no malpractices has occurred with data use) and because it’s much longer than his initial report (which shows just how much the man has Gish Gallop down to an art form). It doesn’t refute the evidence at all – it’s a smoke screen; but his fans fall for it!
I’m always quoting Tim Minchin, “Science adjust it’s views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.”
If you’ve ever tried to explain evolution to a creation, you’d have ended up in the same place. You cannot win with these people because what they have selected as evidence isn’t reasoned evidence on any level. It’s wishful thinking and no amount of evidence can overcome that and whilst people like Bolt pretend they’re providing a balanced coverage to the non-existent debate, such people will have all the evidence they need.
Luckily, a recent CSIRO reports shows that they don’t make up the bulk of Australians; http://www.csiro.au/resources/Attitudes-climate-change.html they’re just noisy and well represented.
The study also showed that by perpetuating this illusion of a debate, they have also won by saturation – many people are now disengaged and uninterested.
We have washed much energy on a small, ideological bunch.
The best way forward, and now my approach, is to simply report on the inaccuracies of his presentations on my own space – it eats at you actually engaging with a brick wall – and work at demonstrating how change of practices will actually be better for us without the need for climate discussion. ie. renewable energy increases local energy dependence and lowers impact of fluctuating oil prices; reintroducing local small scale produce production provides better quality, fresher food and can be achieved in an urban environment; Transit orientated developments make life simpler and less costly and more efficient that congested personal vehicle use… etc.
People are interested in reducing their living expenses. They are interested in improving the work / life balance. They are interested in living in a safe, attractive and happy community. Boneheads like Bolt and Monckton can’t argue against that and in retrospect, they actually look quite silly – happy little slaves for gluttonous growth rather than human contentment.
As much as it’s frustrating, there are options – I wouldn’t let Bolt’s and Monckton’s trolls bring you down.

In one of his grand hallucinations, Monckton claimed that Jackie Kennedy got President Kennedy to go after DDT by tugging on his pyjamas in bed; and Monckton also claimed Kennedy created the EPA and appointed his close, personal friend William Ruckelshaus to be director, just to get DDT.

Of course, Kennedy would have had to have come back from the dead to befriend Ruckelshaus and supplant Richard Nixon in the White House — but that didn’t stop Monckton from making the claims.

According to Christopher Monckton, the Australian Government’s climate change advisor – Professor Ross Garnaut [Gar-No] – can be likened to a Nazi. At a conference in Los Angeles, July 2011, Monckton “displayed a Nazi swastika next to a quote from Professor Garnaut”, when he compared statements made by Adolf Hitler to Professor Garnaut’s suggestion that people should accept the mainstream science of climate change. In a report covering this incident, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] quoted the irascible Lord when he referred to Garnaut’s comments as “a fascist point of view, that you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go”

Of course Monckton has no idea where we’re going if we don’t do something immediately about climate disarray.

Monckton’s slur occurred only a few days before he once again landed on Australian shores to berate those who desired the “shut down [of] democracy worldwide” that would accompany a global response to climate change. It is more than curious that an individual with an inherited title should espouse democracy, when indeed his title denotes anything but democracy.
Australia is one of the few country’s that provides media coverage to Monckton and the opinions he espouses, so it is not surprising that he rocked up on the eve of the Gillard Government releasing the details of its proposed Carbon-tax.
Monckton’s most recent escapade down-under was organised and funded by anti-carbon-tax lobbyists: one of his major sponsors were some of the more extremely wealthy members of the Association of Mining & Exploration Corporations. Due to his stunt in LA – for which his apologised Murdoch-style – Australian media outlets gave him more coverage than warranted: this is often explained as providing a ‘balanced debate’. The lord then proceeded to appear at the televised National Press Club, was interviewed in the press and on TV, he addressed gatherings at Universities, and roundly supported the rejection of the proposed carbon-tax, much to the delight of the Tony Abbott-led Liberal opposition. His jibe at Garnaut ensured that he gained extensive coverage, perhaps more than normal.

What has been interesting is that, of recent, the majority of Monckton’s critics here in Australia have simply referred to him as Christopher Monckton, omitting the hereditary title (which let’s face it applies solely to the U.K.). What I suspect may happen amongst Moncktonites is that they are numbed and lulled by his lordship, even by his persuasive and trustworthy English accent, equating and confusing them both with intellectual authority. Naïve colonialists have succumbed to the trappings of ancient English customs.

The Garnaut Review of Climate Change was instigated by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) when it was in opposition; its brief was to conduct a detailed investigation and analysis of climate science, the likely scenarios and the economics of addressing climate change. On assuming Government in 2007 the ALP retained the services of Prof Garnaut, who only this year handed down his final report. As with many such commissions the quest for the triple-bottom-line places the environment on an equal footing with the economic and social aspects, but in reality leaving the environment subservient to the desires and demands of humanity.

Ross Garnaut himself is an individual of seeming contradictions. For two decades he was an economic advisor to successive Australian Prime Ministers, both Liberal and ALP. “In 1995, Garnaut was offered the Chairmanship of a new PNG mining company, Lihir Gold Limited. The company’s main mine is on the island of Lihir, 700 kilometres north east of Port Moresby. This large open-cut gold mine generates huge taxes and export revenues for PNG. It is also a serious polluter of the coral reefs and ocean floor around Lihir Island, as mine tailings which contain traces of cyanide and heavy metals are loaded on barges and dumped on the nearby ocean floor. Meanwhile, post-processing waste is discharged by pipeline 1.5 kilometres out to sea.” In an interview with the ABC Garnaut stated that the environmental impacts had been “very carefully studied, and the studies have concluded that there won’t be detrimental effects on fish life. It’s highly technical stuff, and I myself have to rely on expert opinion on that. But the expert opinion is reassuring.” But what Garnaut didn’t tell ABC listeners was that Papaua New Guinea’s environmental standards were far lower than those expected of an Australian mine. Like so many, Garnaut is serious about his examination of and the threats posed by climate change, and he has released studies and findings that have angered many deniers-&-delayers, but like so many he fails to draw a line between what he may acknowledge intellectually and what he puts into practice.

Lewis Carroll – Alice In Wonderland/Through The Looking Glass – was right: nothing is as it seems. Monckton is lauded as being a valid and authoritative voice that denounces the findings of the IPCC. Garnaut knows intellectually what is required but can’t translate that into real action in his business life. And Gillard acknowledges the validity of the climate science, yet puts a scheme that will effect bugger-all reductions in Australia’s GHG emissions, at the same time supporting the expansion of the coal industry. It is not difficult to imagine poking your forefinger through some of these folk and finding nothing more than loose dirt.

Excellent info but as with all such comments you are preaching to the converted. I have tried pointing some of these claims out to people and I could not even convince one idiot that Monckton was not even a member of the Lords as he claimed despite giving him the link to the UK Parliament’s website where the Clerk to the Parliaments makes this very statement. He is convinced through another party that such information is recorded in Monckton’s passport.

“We shall lose the West unless we can restore the use of reason to pre-eminence in our institutions of what was once learning. It was the age of reason that built the West and made it prosperous and free. The age of reason gave you your great Constitution of liberty. It is the power of reason, the second of the three great powers of the soul in Christian theology, that marks our species out from the rest of the visible creation, and makes us closest to the image and likeness of our Creator. I cannot stand by and let the forces of darkness drive us unprotesting into a new Dark Age.”

Here’s my rule: There are always liars on both sides. But if one side is actually closer to the truth, they don’t HAVE to lie as much. So are there people promoting climate change action who are exaggerating? Absolutely. But the science is far enough to that side of the court that those in the mainstream over there don’t have to exaggerate at all. The people who are denying any need to act, however, are so far from the science that they CONSTANTLY have to stretch (or break) the truth to promote their view. Monckton is a great example.

The people who claim emissions trading schemes are not needed, or don’t work, are fibbing a lot. We used it in the US to end acid rain. Great, free-market style solutions that produce tremendous reductions in harmful pollutants, cheaply.

[…] the doubt. In this case, many people have already addressed Monckton’s past mistakes here and here and in a series of videos here, here, here, and here. These are just a small sampling among many […]

So it seems the Holy S__t Lord Monckton has branched out form climate science denial into new territory, birtherism. I came across a link, don’t have it bookmarked, that showed a communication between a White House rep and a Koch Brothers rep having an exchange about Obama’s birth certificate. The Koch Brothers are the guys who own an oil and coal corporation and pay for much of that climate science denial we’ve all heard on cownservative radio and from conservative politicians. So my question is, has anybody found any connection between Monckton and the Koch Brothers?

This site is very vague on which position it’s on regarding climate change. When something isn’t strait forward, there is generally an underlying agenda. What is fact and supportable, is that the climate change criers have been duped, sold a bill of goods. It’s sad we don’t teach anymore our people to think for themselves. The climate on this rock has always vacillated, with or without people. The UN’s Agenda 21 program to reduce population will not change this. THINK PEOPLE!!!

If you think my position isn’t clear, you obviously haven’t read much of the site.

Since nobody is saying that the Earth’s climate never changed before humans came along, your point doesn’t address anything anybody is arguing. I hope you take the hint to look into what climatologists are actually saying before you make another attempt to argue against it.

And since you left your comment on this particular page, and Agenda 21 is one of Monckton’s favorite talking points, I gather you are a fan of Monckton. Read the above article. Click the links. THAT is whom you are trusting.

The only underlying agenda is that the oil and coal industry are fighting for their financial lives, especially Koch Industries (The Koch Brothers). And I’ve read that there are paid bloggers who deny the climate science on behalf of the energy industry.

Agenda 21? It calls for clean water so people won’t get sick from drinking water. It calls for wise practices to conserve soil, so we can grow enough crops to feed everybody. Joyce, have you been reading the Agenda 21 documents, or hoax stories put out by people who want you to do the wrong thing?

Can you point to any proposal here that isn’t straight out of the Boy Scout Fieldbook or Soil and Water Conservation merit badge?

to me Monckton is legit and Agenda 21 is another attack from the UN and the eugenicists that created it (rockefeller rothschild). If your on board with Monckton, good, if your not, your probably a tv head and love the british royal family that is really german. ;-p

What in the world do you object to in Agenda 21? Are you opposed to soil and water conservation? I assume you were never a Boy Scout, and that you never earned the conservation merit badges. The link to the official Agenda 21 website is posted above — what, specifically, do you object to?

Monckton is an inveterate prevaricator, another never-was-a-Boy-Scout (see post above; Prof. Bickmore is deadly accurate and careful with his citations; also see my take here, and here). I prefer to do business with honest people.

[…] sides of the debate on an equal footing is simply bias masquerading as balance. Andrew Bolt and Christopher Monckton are obvious examples, with both garnering attention that far exceeds that of the 97% of the […]

Why is it that you say that Monkton is the “contrarian” on this topic it implies that the liars and decievers are correct. From my point of view the hoaxers perporting this ridiculous lie upon humanity for political idiology are crimminals and in time should be bought to justice. Christopher Monkton is a champion for truth and commonsense world wide.

Monckton is a lying sack of canine excrement, and a purveyor of fresh male bovine excrement. Anyone who will claim President Kennedy came back from the dead to ban DDT is either a fool or an evil conniver — and in neither case should you trust him in anything else he says.

Monckton would be regarded as a nearly-pleasant, eccentric old crazy codger, if he didn’t have his family’s money to help him travel the world , and if he weren’t so unpleasant and crass in his insults.

Seriously, Andrew: How can you trust a guy who lies about history AND zombies, at the same time?

I assure you Monckton was not misquoted in any fashion. I have provided a complete transcript, and a link to the audio version (if Monckton’s accomplices have not taken it down.) If you wish to accuse me of such error after you’ve checked the facts, then I’ll assume you’re Monckton in disguise, still unwilling (and probably completely unable) to debate me.

He can’t stand the exposure in person, nor, we might hope, the cognitive dissonance.

Are you Monckton? If not, don’t follow his ways. Stick to the facts, stick to the transcript in this case, and notice that what he says is bizarre at best, and completely in error with regard to history, and science, and law, and politeness.

also..pay your carbon taxes to al the whore gore and the rothschilds or go to jail…..just like obamacare you will pay the tax or have you balls removed. stop sucking you thumb and wake up to the tyranny this instant…and if not just bow down to the new world order and die accordingly slave.

also..pay your carbon taxes to al the whore gore and the rothschilds or go to jail…

Those who pay carbon taxes are those who pollute. As we discovered in the Reagan administration, taxes on pollution work well to reduce pollution. Polluters either find creative new ways to limit pollution, or pay the taxes to clean it up. It’s a free-market solution, to economists, to free-market economists. I gather you have not studied such economics much.

In the proposals Congress did not pass, criminal penalties like jail were not even proposed.

In the carbon tax plans working in Germany and Spain, there is no jail time. Germany has surpassed the U.S. in solar power, and is limiting carbon emissions — with a robust economy and no one going to jail. If we were to use real history, we’d note that there is no jail.

Nor is there need for near-profanity to describe people involved (the Rothschilds are not involved, by the way).

..just like obamacare you will pay the tax or have you balls removed.

Only in your case, and only if you can find the section of the bill under “Physical Deracination of Mindless Opponents.” (Cite the section here, please.) Otherwise, everyone else is clear. So are you.

(If by some fluke of magic you were to find such a section, the Affordable Healthcare Act would make certain your wounds were treated appropriately.)

Me a victim!!??? You sir are either the victim or are in the service of the right wing corporate propagandists. I’ve been around the block a few times. I wasn’t born yesterday. I know right wing BS when I hear it and left wing BS when I hear it. Want left wing BS? Then listen to Randi Rhodes or Thom Hartman or any of the other liberal talk show hosts when they go easy on criminal minorities because they and their relatives are voting constituents of the Democratic Party. Want right win BS? Just listen to Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones deny climate science. Or just listen to Rush on almost any topic. He is the servant of his corporate masters. Example, one day he gets on the air and says global warming is a hoax, a political issue, not a science issue. A few days later he gets on the air and says he golfs and eats dinner with the Koch Brothers. And his audience is full of low information listeners who don’t have a clue how much money the Kochs have dumped into climate science denial and how many conservative politicians they pay off to deny climate science and keep any meaningful legislation from being enacted to stop the burning of fossil fuels and convert over to a clean energy economy. Rush calls clean energy a liberal wet dream. He’s a well paid Koch shill.

Barry…you are getting your information from the UN no doubt. This satanic body created by Rockefeller/Rothschild ( the same people that have created the Federal Private Central Bank in USA) to be the World Governing Body through Global Governance is behind the scam that you are perpetuating. You are also part of a university that has been [snip profanity] by the globalist agenda which is nothing more than global enslavement. You are most likely being paid handsomely for your support of this draconian [snip profanity] over the world. You and I are [snip profanity] if the implementation of this global governing body gets more power. I mean no respect to you on this blog. Please understand the agenda behind this. I still would like to talk with you on my program. I am not affiliated with Monckton, I just want truth and a better tomorrow for all of us. I am just a regular guy who has looked at both sides of this and done research on who is pushing it and they are eugenicists and control freaks.

Well, I gather from your colorful description of my university and your accusations that I am being “paid handsomely” that it was no mistake when you said, “I mean no respect to you”.

In fact, I once did get paid about $50 in gas money to drive to someplace where I gave a talk about climate change, and when I gave another talk, they gave me a framed advertising poster and an engraved laser pointer! I feel so dirty….

And no, I won’t be going on your “radio” program. First, I probably wouldn’t appreciate the constant stream of profanity. Second, I don’t get the impression that you’ve bothered checking into any of the charges against Monckton. Why should I bother debating someone who only believes what he wants to hear?

Since you seem to be the kind of person who forms Monckton’s core audience (conspiracy theorists), I was hoping you could put some pressure on him to do a written debate where we can check sources. I guess you’re not interested in trying that.

Wow! this is a side of Monckton I haven’t heard about. I have heard the rumors that Kennedy survived the gun shots but was a mental vegetable locked away in secret. That’s a bunch of horse manure too! Monckton has got to have money rolling in from the oil and coal industry that enables him to live in style and travel the country putting on those dog and pony climate disinfo live seminars. He’s such a good salesman, that if I didn’t already know that the oil and coal industry pays millions of $$$ per year for climate science denial to protect billions of $$$ in profit, a good investment, then I’d believe Monckton myself! He’s that persuasive!

You obviously can’t stand it when people hit you with the truth. You have no defense, so you name call and hang up the keyboard! When you smarten up and get wise to what’s really going on, let me know.

There are people that think for themselves and those who repeat others. You are a repeator nobrane and a tv worshipper. You are a socially engineered fool and an enemy of man. The green movement is a anti-human agenda. If you are all for it then kill yourself and make the world more green. Bad day nobrane you puppet go along to get along serf. You don’t have a platform program do you nobrane. Type on blogs and repeat lies to be somebody. You are pathetic!

Conservatiec commentators usually get paid by the corporations to propagandize the unsuspecting public for them. It’s called capitalist propaganda, which is as bad or worse than communist propaganda. (We used to be told to worry about communist infiltration in our government. Fred Koch, the Koch Brohter’s father found a communist in every part of Kennedy’s administration. His sons find socialists in every part of Obama’s administration.) You sir, I suspect don’t get paid by the corporations. I suspect that you listen to Limbaugh and Alex Jones and worship the air the broadcast on, and you buy into everything they tell you without question. Why not listen to a really hones talk show host, Gary Null. He criticises Obama for being a tool of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, and criticizes the Obamacare bill as a giveaway to the insurance companies. He can’t be gotten over the air except in some cities. But you can hear his show if you go to http://www.progressiveradio.com.
Notice that no conservative commentator will criticize Obama for the above reasons because they and their man Romney are guilty of the same sins!

Unlike you, I would never stoop to telling someone to go kill themselves for fear that they might take me seriously. Death is way too final a finality to treat cavalierly. I don’t have a blog radio program. I could get one going if I so chose to, but why bother? I’m having enough fun arguing with conservatives on blogs. And when I done doing that, I have other things I need to get to.

Let’s cool it off, guys. People passionately believe a lot of dumb things without being paid to do so. There’s no reason to call names or accuse people of things for which we have no evidence.

Andrew, if you want a debate–a real debate–I offered on a couple occasions to debate Monckton as long as it was an online, written format, where we would have a chance to check each other’s sources. What could be fairer? That way, if someone starts making stuff up, the other could call him on it and provide links and quotations to prove the case. Monckton’s handler (Bob Ferguson) flatly refused the offer, even though he had offered me $5000 to do a live, oral debate, in which we wouldn’t have time to check each others’ sources.

If you could persuade Monckton and his handler to debate me in written format, I would love to. Let me know what happens.

Barry…you are getting your information from the UN no doubt. This satanic body created by Rockefeller/Rothschild ( the same people that have created the Federal Private Central Bank in USA) to be the World Governing Body through Global Governance is behind the scam that you are perpetuating. You are also part of a university that has been [snip profanity] by the globalist agenda which is nothing more than global enslavement. You are most likely being paid handsomely for your support of this draconian [snip profanity] over the world. You and I are [snip profanity] if the implementation of this global governing body gets more power. I mean no respect to you on this blog. Please understand the agenda behind this. I still would like to talk with you on my program. I am not affiliated with Monckton, I just want truth and a better tomorrow for all of us. I am just a regular guy who has looked at both sides of this and done research on who is pushing it and they are eugenicists and control freaks.

Spoken like a true Alex Jones brainwashed listener. Don’t you know he’s working for the Koch Bothers? They’re oil and coal barons, so of course the UN is evil with all their climate scientists saying we need to stop burning oil and coal, and add to that natural gas. All governments need to start working on this problem in earnest, and coordinating with the UN does’t seem to be a bad idea. After all, the original purpose of the UN was to bring nations together to solve problems, especially to solve them peacefully before going to war to solve them.

Oh such horse manure! You embarrass yourself sending conservative crap to me. I know all the conservative commetators and conservative websites are in the back pocket of the energy industry. There is no debate. 99% of real degreed climatologists agree that we are in a lot of trouble with global warming. Any casual observer who is told that we are dumping multiple gigatones of Co2 into a finite atmosphere every year would take notice and maybe be a bit concerned. You are sooooo brainswashed!

In any case, you ought to read Naomi Oreskes’ and Erik Conway’s book, Merchants of Doubt. They showed that most of those scientists/commentators/etc. who have supported the anti-environmental lobby have probably done so for ideological reasons, not because they were mercenaries. I don’t think you’re doing anyone any favors by imputing those kinds of motives to EVERYONE who is passionately anti-science.

I haven’t read her book so I don’t know about her statements about anti-science people doing the climate science denial thing for idealogical reasons. All I know for sure is that there are those paid to BS the public and those who get into a religous-like frenzy when you challenge them on all the BS they so ignorantly swallowed from those that are paid to do the denial. If there are Republican scientists out there doing the denial because they are Republicans, then I don’t know about that. Those Republicans, scientists or lay people who swallow the BS from the BS’ers are definitely denying the climate science for ideological reasons.

I’ll tell you one story. I heard a prominient physicist turned UFO investigator on Coast to Coast AM doing climate science denial on that show. (Coast to Coast has turned into a haven for climate science denier guests and right wing substitute talk show hosts doing anti Obama material). I had his email address and I challenged him on that. All he could do was email me links to conservative websites to back up his claims, hardly credible material in lieu of the BS’ers and the BS’d as I already mentioned. So is he in it for the money? Maybe so. He is older and probably needs the extra cash to live a reasonably comfortable life in his old age. Hell, if the Koch Brothers came and offered me a couple of mil a year to do climate science denial for them, I’d most likely do it too. Everybody has their price. But until that happens, I’ll keep fighting to educate the public about the bought and paid for climate science deniers and low information dumbasses who believe their propaganda.

O puke! Monckton has never been published in the peer review literature. He doesn’t have a climatology degree, only oil and coal industry connections. He’s great showman, I’ll give him that. Look at http://www.climatetv.tv to see 2 debunking videos on that bought and paid for buffoon!

I think we all suffer from narcissism. I think Monckton loves the limelight. And I think he loves pulling the wool over people’s eyes and then laughs behind their backs at how gullable they are. And then he loves going to the bank with his check from one of the energy industry’s checks from one of it’s think tanks or front groups.

If he were simply a cynical liar, why would he do stuff like claim to have developed a miracle cure? I think he really believes this stuff, and can’t fathom the idea that he could possibly be wrong about anything. In other words, I think he’s truly off his nut.

It could be that he believes some, but not all of his BS. As for being nuts, look at his eyes. They bug out. I think that is a sign of a man with a bit of a mental problem, but I could be wrong. I’m no expert. His climate science denial just fits right in with the denial of all the Republican politicians and the conservative talkers on the radio. That for sure is all bought an paid for, so I believe Monckton is in on the same game these guys are in on. Take a look at the YouTube video, ‘Koch Brothers Amazing Climate Denial Machine.’ You’ll better understand the extent just these oil and coal barons, never mind the other oil and coal barons, have gone to deny the climate science and keep making billions of $$$ every year, regardless of how much the climate goes to hell.

Don’t worry Raymond. While your concern is refreshing and the condition is incurrable, it has indeed been conquered by his own treatment.

The scoffers will continue to scoff, though if the condition hadn’t been conquered then Monckton would never have risen from the state of terminal decline it had him in until only 4 years ago and then most of you would never have heard of him and the world would still be being led by the catastrophism being peddled by misguided pessimists.

While no single man can take credit for sidelining the whole CAGW shibboleth, if Monckton hadn’t recovered it would have taken a lot longer and done a great deal more harm.

I’m not concerned about Monckton. If he died and was buried in Austin, I’d go dance on his grave!
Monckton is but one of the chess pieces who gets good money from the oil and coal industry (koch Brothers the biggest) to bullshit us, the lowest chess pieces on the chess board, the pawns into believing this BS so we continue to ignore climate change and demand no action by taken by our representatives in government. Good news for us and bad news for the Kochs, is that they just lost a NY court case. they tried to overturn the NY law that puts NY into the other states on the climate intitiative. They lost on a local level. Too bad for us that they have succeded on a federal level. There’s hardly a Republican politician today that admits to man made global warming, even though some used to say so. They’ve been gotten to. I hear the Kochs bribe and also threaten politicians with the ruination of their careers if they don’t tow the line on climate science denial. Now what have they got on them that they could blackmail them with, and what legal and illegal means did they use to get the dirt? I wonder.

The United Nations has no information on this topic. It makes policy suggestions — and suggestions only, in almost all cases — from information generated by scientists like Barry.

You’ve got the relationship exactly backwards, and that makes me nervous about anything else you claim on this issue.

But chiefly, it suggests to me that you’re unwilling to discuss the issues, but would rather frame everything with a “Me-against-all-the-rest-of-you-morons-idiots-and-dupes theme.

Excuse me, but we’ll get farther, your views will be better accepted, and everyone will be happier, if we all assume that we are all of us in this for the issues, and because we care about our children and grandchildren — even Monckton — and not to promote the evil plots of Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, Moriarty, or Lindsay Lohan.

This satanic body created by Rockefeller/Rothschild ( the same people that have created the Federal Private Central Bank in USA) to be the World Governing Body through Global Governance is behind the scam that you are perpetuating.

The U.N. was created more by the ideas of people like John Maynard Keynes, though he played no significant role himself. The Rothschilds were out of the network. The UN is very much Woodrow Wilson’s intellectual grandchild, following on the failure of the League of Nations Wilson proposed at the Versailles convention on the treaty to end World War I, but building on the idea of peace working better than war. This novel idea drove the British policies of the late 19th century and 20th century — Britain discovered that, rather than use an army to conquer a land, use the military to protect trade routes, and then the people at both ends of the trade route get rich. Even though Britain had a difficult time letting go of its colonies, they worked to make this a policy of the world after WWII. The UN was created to fight war crimes, to protect human rights, and to promote democratic governments wherever possible — and especially to stop aggressions of the sorts that plagued Europe for the previous 100 years.

If you read the UN Charter, you’ll note that there are no provisions for “global governance.” The UN may not maintain jurisdiction over any land, nor any peoples. The UN may not have an army, nor a navy.

Central banking, already working well in the U.S., was necessary to protect free trade, the greatest protection against totalitarianism. The world banking system we have now was established, separately from the UN, at the Bretton Woods conference, with the finance ministers of the Allied Powers. Again, there is no world governing authority — only the authority to lend money to nations to do good.

Have you studied the Bretton Woods agreement, or the charters of the International Monetary Fund or World Bank? There are serious problems with both of those organizations — megalomania and hegemony are not among them, nor could they be.

You are also part of a university that has been ass raped by the globalist agenda which is nothing more than global enslavement.

I won’t question your familiarity with asses, but I would note that the most common kind we use here are sterile, and have no ability for such actions. Which is an almost-polite way of saying you have absolutely no clue about the university you’re talking about. Such colossal ignorance!

You are most likely being paid handsomely for your support of this draconian —- job over the world. You and I are —ed if the implementation of this global governing body gets more power. I mean no respect to you on this blog. Please understand the agenda behind this. I still would like to talk with you on my program. I am not affiliated with Monckton, I just want truth and a better tomorrow for all of us. I am just a regular guy who has looked at both sides of this and done research on who is pushing it and they are eugenicists and control freaks.

Call Alex Trebek and see whether you can buy a clue. And get a copy of any of the Miss Manners books. It will improve your ability to move things in the world.

Oh, I do fear that he’s suckered in millions more the same way he’s suckered you.

But I also have faith in America and Americans, who, as Winston Churchill noted, will almost always do the right thing, after trying everything else.

I also love my children, and I hope their children and grandchildren have a habitable planet. So I continue to tell the truth, and people like Christopher Monckton and you think it’s hell.

I also have hope that you’re not so stubbornly stupid as you appear, but instead have a degree of rationality that can be touched by actual evidence and fact. Odd as it may seem, I’ve not given up on you. You may yet have your eyes opened, You may yet decide to take your blinders off.

It ain’t over till it’s over. In this case, either we prevent more global warming, or we must deal with the catastrophic changes it brings. “Loss?” Wheat still grows in Kansas, but not so much south of Kansas. Beef still grows in Colorado, though no longer in Texas. Ocean rises more slowly in the Pacific, suggesting there may be refuge for us in the west coast.

I have hopes.

You have no children, and no concerns for the future, I take it. That’s probably a greater loss than the one you falsely claim.

Nice job you did on this reply to the Monckty brains supporter. What a fantastic appeal to the guy’s humanity. There is a saying however, “don’t waste your pearls on swine.” i think it’s apt here except our AGW denier is human not a pig. But he is either pig headed because he is a true believer or he is getting paid by the oil and coal industry to spout this denial dribble, or he hopes to get noticed and get on the Koch Brothers’ bought and paid climate denier payroll someday. God only knows the truth, but he aint talkin’! ha ha!
One good resource for good climate science news articles is http://www.garynull.com. Look on the left of the homepage, scroll down, and click on the ‘climate change’ link.

I agree, Monckton lied about being a member of the House of Lords and even a link to the House of Lords website with a statement to that affect by the clerk of the Parliament could not convince some people as he continued to peddle that lie. The sad part about those that have responded here is that they take everything Monckton says at face value and are not prepared to look at any of the evidence.

I think the conservative commentators and Monckton are taking a play right out of the playbook of the Nazis. Tell a lie big enough and often enough and it becomes ‘the truth’. And burn the books so people can’t get another opinion. In this case you can’t burn the books, but you can buy up all the radio and put conservative programming on it and nothing else, and Monckton can put on climate science denial seminars financed by big oil and coal and allow no other opinion to be presented at those seminars. And then people who are easily led by the nose become true believers. I first heard about global warming from scientist James Burke back in the 80’s on one of his PBS TV programs. This was well before the oil and coal industry mounted a climate science denial propaganda campaign. And they have plenty of $$$ to run that campaign and talk show hosts (Ruah Limbaugh/Alex Jones etc), scientists (who don’t have a climatology degree), and Monckton, all willing to suck off the generous tit of big oil and coal.

Support for the Gillard govt in Australia is at an all time low because of their introducing a $23 per ton on carbon emmissions and they will be wiped out next election in 2013. The massive smear and fear campaign against them and the climate scientists by Monkton who was funded by News Ltd media and the mining barons has destroyed a good government. This man has done a lot of damage. PS; The Gillard opposition party leader Tony Abbott is on record as saying ” climate change is crap ” . looks like thats what the voters want to hear..

Correction, Lord Monckton supported by News Ltd and funded by the mining barons. News Ltd have 70+% of Australian media and have several radio networks under contract,shock joks etc. That’s the best i can do as I’m not that well educated but i still like to think i know the truth when i hear it and i believe the climate scientists.

Monckton is a big problem, and so is the conservative media. It seems that Australia has both of those problems as well as the US. I first heard about global warming when scientist James Burke was on TV here in the US in the 80’s. He did one segment on it on one of his TV shows. Then in the 2000’s, I read a Huffinton Post article that said that the oil and coal industry dump millions of $$$ on climate science denial to protect their profits and stop legislation from being enacted. in 2010, in a google search for climate science denial, I came across a New Yorker Magazine article on the Koch Brothers, two oil and coal billionaires who have dumped the most on climate denial of anybody. Then about a year ago, I found a video on YouTube called ‘The Koch Brothers Amazing climate denial machine.’ It shows the massive amount of denial funding on many different places the Kochs can think to use it.
The big problem with conservatives is that they believe the BS that Monckton, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and other media personalities say without questioning it. Sad. You don’t have to have a huge education to understand that the climatologists are correct. You just have to have an internet connection and stay away from the conservative websites, except to have a look at their disinfo. Alex Jone’s site already has a disinfo piec on climate skeptic/Koch study funded Richard Muller’s assertaion that global warming is real and it is mostly man made. Ironic indeed, since the study was paid for by the Koch’s. They wasted their money on that one!

Christopher Monckton cannot possibly be taken seriously – his views on AIDs and how to cure it, challenging Obama’s birth certificate his failure to win a seat in Scotland as a UKIP member is just but a few of the actions that this self character tries to get away with. UK Intependant Party days – Britain for the British – where did that get you? His outbursts recently in Gibraltar were totally theatrical. Get real Christopher!

Monckton can be taken seriously on 2 points. He’s a good showman and a good liar and data maniupulator and good presentator of faked data making his audience believe him. And point 2 is that he’s making a ton of money from the fossil fuel industry doing it. Oh if only I was that smart, talented, and unashamedly dishonest!

[…] Anyone who cares to peruse the history of his climate activities, as recorded by Barry Bickmore at Monckton’s Rap Sheet, will find that the discount viscount has a chequered past, as well as plenty of evidence of […]

[…] Cooperative Research Centre, calling for his dismissal. Many more are listed by Barry Bickmore at Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet. The principal objective seems to be gain a little publicity for himself and his propaganda tours, […]

where Monckton shows how the folks at Skeptical Science and Environmental Research Letters can’t put together a coherent sentence where it matters most–Monckton is clearly smarter than all of them combined.

But bizarre because here we have a “scientist” resorting to gossip rather than science in order to undermine his nemesis. More so because this so called scientist attacks a nemesis who has made a late career of refuting a pseudoscience so bizarre it may rightfully be said it has no precedent.

End-of-the-world preachers have been around for a long time, but with the Enlightenment they were relegated to dark corners and ignored by the free thinkers. And so it remained until the 80’s. Now the world is topsy turvy. Hysteria has become institutionalized, and all who refuse to pay lip service to the hysteria are marginalized and defamed. And most bizarre of all, the scientific world has embraced the hysteria and chimed in with the chorus of name calling: What? You deny the world is coming to an end? Off to the asylum with you!

What Bickmore and his like minded fellows would like you to believe is that all skeptics are as eccentric as his lordship, that none are worth listening to, when of course there plenty of highly competent lights in every relevant field who have nothing but contempt for this upstart pseudoscience. I could name many but I’ll just give one example here: Dyson Freeman. BB says nothing about him; he likes big easy targets.

But the fact remains that there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who professes this dogma of climate doom. I’ll pick the easiest target: sea level rise. 80 years at 2mm/y. NO correlation to historical temperature. NO correlation to CO2 concentration. NO acceleration except in the minds of the statistically imaginative and metrically inept, such as by comparing sat data to tide gauge records. Sea level danger is a farce! A bogey man invented by the stupidest fools on the planet. There is no trend of acceleration that can be teased out of the tremendous noise of tides and air pressure and falling sea basins and rising shelves. All who claim otherwise are selling snake oil.

Scientific millennialism. Chiliastic quacks. Fools and imbeciles who think they have a market on truth. Pay attention to the likes of Barry Bickmore at your own risk. –A G Foster

Oh, I know, A.G. I’m a bad, bad person–resorting to the dreaded AD HOMINEM!!! Of course, in the interest of complete fairness, I offer the following minor points.

1. Which information on this page is “gossip”? Can you point to anything, in particular, that is incorrect? Out of context? Unfair? If you can, let’s hear it.

2. There are several links on this page to instances where Monckton’s “scientific claims” were examined, sometimes by yours truly, and found to be bizarrely dishonest. Made-up data. Cited references that say the exact opposite of what was claimed. Funny statistics. And so on.

3. My primary reason for including all the other instances of Monckton’s flamboyant freakishness is that most people don’t have the tools to really be able to check Monckton’s claims for themselves. But that doesn’t stop some of them from hand-waving about how devastating his critiques are, asking Monckton to testify as a climate science expert before Congress, and pontificating about how climate science has devolved into a “pseudoscience”. What this page does is show that, even if these people can’t understand the science well enough to recognize complete nonsense, they can at least ask themselves whether they ought to be getting their science from someone who thinks he’s created a cure for a large number of serious diseases and goes about pretending to be a member of Parliament.

4. While Monckton surely is an easy target, you will notice that I have an entire section of the blog devoted to Roy Spencer, an actual climate scientist who is a contrarian.

5. I somehow doubt that you have taken the time to truly analyze Freeman Dyson’s objections to standard climate science, because a) you don’t even get his name right, and b) you don’t mention any of his objections. For you, Dyson is just a SMART GUY, who believes what you want to believe.

Is it really fair to say Dyson objects to standard science? From his writings, I get the impression that he’s saying he doesn’t think solutions to global warming are so difficult as some make out — in his big piece a couple of years ago, he was making a case that soil microbes could lock up a lot more CO2 than most models indicated, which, if accurate, offers much greater hope for sequestering enough CO2 to make a difference in our lifetimes.

That wasn’t much of a critique of the standard models, it seems to me.

It sounded like a critique of the politics against the standard models.

Foster, you are either a brainwashed automoton, brainwashed by Monckton for sure, and most likely some consipracy talk show host such as Alex Jones, a Koch Brothers lacky for sure, or you are a paid disinfo blogger. You can’t tell me wattsupwiththat don’t have a bunch of laundered oil and coal money coming in indirectly from the Kochs or some other energy companies. These companies will say or do practically anything to keep it business as usual. To fix the climate problem, they have to be phased out of business farily quickly if we are to save the Earth from climate disaster. That means the energy industry will go from making billions of $$$ per year to making $0 $$$ per year. Great big gooose egg! Nada, nothing, no more dinero. And they sure as hell aint giving up without a fight, and they have a whole lotta money to wage that fight. The energy industry is the richest on Earth right now. What they should do is start converting into green energy companies. Instead they have their lackies do climate science denial for them and play down alternative forms of energy to replace oil, coal, and natural gas. And they bought the Republicans in Congress and organized Tea Party meetings all across the country and got the people at those meetings to believe man made climate change is a hoax, a UN conspiracy to tax and enslave us, and they told them who to vote for, Tea Party candidates. What a mess! Oh my!

High horse? Am I correct in assuming you believe climbing CO2 PPM is a serious problem that we might somehow fix? Would I be correct in assuming that you think SLR will increase dangerously? The fact is, you believe the earth is flat, and Monckton thinks it’s round. He’s on the side of sanity. You are not. While the country goes deeper into debt it subsidizes solar farms that fill up with weeds or get covered with bird shit because they are never profitable. All to save us from a fairy tale of doom. YOU are part of the problem that Monckton is addressing. –AGF

In other words, you believe Monckton’s idiocy, but you don’t know enough to defend it. Then someone sends you to this page, and it embarrasses you, because even if you haven’t bothered to check whether he, for instance, completely made up false IPCC temperature projections to criticize, it still stings that you’ve been following after some nut who thinks he’s a member of Parliament and invents miracle cures. So you start dressing me down, because it’s easier to call me a big fat meanie who believes fairy tales than face the fact that you aren’t quite the tough-minded iconoclast you thought. In fact, you have no way to tell who is right or wrong about the science, although you act really sure of yourself. But wait!!! There are still lots of smart people–good scientists!–who don’t believe the consensus. What about that one guy, you know… “Dyson Freeman,” or something like that? You don’t really know what his main objections are, or whether they are likely to be correct, but he’s a smart guy, right?

That’s the real purpose of this page. It isn’t to tweak Monckton, who I personally believe is mentally ill. Rather, it’s to point out to people like you that there are some pretty obvious signs that you need to rethink your position, or at least be more careful about your information sources.

Once again, if you have any specific objections to anything I’ve said here (and I mean me, not Al Gore or anyone else,) just say so, and I’d be happy to discuss it. It seems to me that I’ve linked some very substantive critiques of Monckton’s “scientific” arguments, including some of my own critiques. And while you like to accuse me of believing fairy tales and resorting to personal attacks, you haven’t provided a single substantive criticism of anything I’ve said here.

Monckton is sure on the side of sanity all right when he stands up in Congress and recommends nothing be done about global warming. That’s just what the fossil fuel companies want so they can keep on making billions of dollars per year and expelling 90 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every 24 hrs worldwide. As I said before, if we want to fix the climate we have to drive the fossil fuel industry out of business, and they ain’t gonna stand for that, not without spending millions of $$$ per year fighting it tooth and nail.

I haven’t said one word about Monckton’s science, and I have read very little of it besides the link provided, where he shows pretty clearly what inept clowns the people at Skeptical Science are. I called your treatment gossip, which it surely is–anyone who knows the meaning of the word knows that the accuracy of the story telling has nothing to do with the definition of the word. What I would like to do is teach you to think clearly, to come to terms with the terrible vagueness of your approach. By the way, I have spent a couple of hours with Dyson Freeman’s or Freeman Dyson’s–whichever it is–videos. (I can say that less than a tenth of a percent of my climate study was of Monckton or Freeman [or Dyson? –still can’t remember].) His main complaint is that funding steered the science toward modeling rather than observation, but he includes lots of the little propaganda: the polar bears aren’t in trouble, the world does not face imminent doom, and so on. He certainly doesn’t think much of Gore and Hansen.

How about you? Do you think Hansen has a clue? Are you capable of taking an intermediate stance, of going against the radical extremists? Will you come out and say that Hansen’s promotion of the possibility of going the way of Venus is not really on the table? I can’t seem to get you to talk about sea level, so for starters, why don’t you address this question: has Hansen or has he not gone overboard in his fear mongering? Let’s see if you are capable of breaking ranks with irrational dogma. –AGF

When his errors are called out, Monckton attacks those who offer the corrections. When his good science is attacked, Hansen hunkers down to explain the science. Which behavior is likely to come from a craven (crazed?) liar, and which from a guy who knows his stuff and works for accuracy?

Which one spent his life toiling in relative obscurity for one of our nation’s premiere science agencies? Which one lied about being a member of his nation’s legislature? Which one stayed in his relatively low-paying position to do the science, and which one bills himself as a star on industry-paid speaking tours?

If you think Hansen has scientific errors, point them out (and show the numbers). Don’t engage in Monckton-like attacks on reputation.

Regarding sea level rise, what am I supposed to say? It is quite uncertain, because it’s so difficult to model ice dynamics. The IPCC took the approach that they would ignore ice loss, and reported a minimum value of sea level rise for a given amount of warming, noting that it could be much more, but how much was hard to predict. I don’t know, specifically, what Hansen said about sea level rise, so perhaps you could enlighten us. My guess is that he warned about the non-negligible possibility of several meters of sea level rise. I say it’s non-negligible because various geological and geochemical estimates of sea level and temperature indicate that we eventually probably will get that much rise.

Regarding Monckton’s article you linked, it’s stupid. Monckton’s endocrinologist, Schulte, didn’t have the expertise to rate the authors’ perspectives of the articles he read. The SkS team, however, went so far as to poll the authors about whether the article expressed a particular perspective, or not. Have you actually read the SkS article? I find it hard to believe that you would find Monckton’s nonsense convincing if you had.

There’s climate disinfo artist named Spartan of Truth who has a blog about a lot of things. (I’ve posted several times. He’s got a bunch of deniers who blog. One of them said that the melting is caused by geothermal warming. Notice that even if climate deniers asckowledge the warming, they pin it on something else other than the burning of fossil fuels. I believe I can pin part of the warming on the excess population that we have on Earth. Back in the 1820’s we have about 1 billion peopl in Earth and now it’s close to 7 billion, and we all breath out C02 and we all expell methan through flatulance. What do you’all think?

As far as sea level rise goes, everything I’ve read about climate change info, not disinfo, say that the scientists were way too conservative in their estimates about a number of things. Now I see you said that the IPCC modeled without sea ice loss dynamics. Ok, it’s uncertain as you say, but they could have given a range and let us know what is the least case and worst case senarios.

contains this quote: “Its definition of the ‘consensus’ it claimed to have found was imprecise: that ‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current anthropogenic global warming.'”

Which unless invented by Monckton, all by itself exposes SK and ERL as perfect idiots. Now if Monckton invented this, and is telling nothing but lies, it should have been easy to show immediately. I didn’t bother to check his sources immediately. When I did check I found the phrase slightly altered (as little as possible) with the caveat, “Corrections were made to this article on 31 May 2013. A data file was added to the supplementary data,” leading me to suppose that Monckton was in fact telling it straight and ERL was cleaning up the crime scene.

But the sorry part is I have to lead you by the nose and explain every little detail, while you engage in confused or deliberate subterfuge telling me I haven’t read articles that I never referred to, and don’t know or care where Monckton did. Did SK and ERL accept such a definition of consensus or didn’t they? If they had would you continue to defend their collective competence?

And I repeat, are you willing to go on record either accepting or rejecting Hansen’s warnings of the real possibility of GHG’s leading to a Venusian atmosphere? I say you are steeped in irrational dogma, with which breaking ranks to any degree is taboo. –AGF

But the sorry part is I have to lead you by the nose and explain every little detail, while you engage in confused or deliberate subterfuge telling me I haven’t read articles that I never referred to, and don’t know or care where Monckton did.

Calm down. Quit trying to win the snark award for the blog. You’re not leading anyone here, and that you think you are is a sign of delusion, to everyone else. Which means you need to slow down and absorb information for a while.

Listen to the experts: Most of what Monckton says is wrong. He’s wrong on the science, and he invents whole cloth, fantabulous tales to make it sound as if he knows what he’s talking about. He’s a performer, an actor, an unintentional comedian (though he makes plenty of effort to ridicule science and scientists, in ways that really are not funny).

So stop referring to Monckton as if he’s anything more than the winner of a local book club’s fiction award.

As to Hansen: Do you know what Hansen actually said about Venus? Please make a reference to an actual paper, and be sure you’re not erroneously making a claim for what he did not, in fact say or write.

You may want to think about Hansen’s actual reputation — take a look at this story about his retirement, for example — and consider whether anyone could become as high ranking as he was at NASA, or so well cited as he is, were he doing junk science.

Are you claiming that Hansen said the Earth would be as hot as Venus? Are you claiming that Hansen said the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere would dramatically change to the same composition as Venus’s atmosphere? Are you claiming Hansen said the Earth’s atmosphere could warm beyond human habitation limits in a display of “Venus Syndrome?”

Do you know the difference between those claims?

Are you willing to go on record saying that you’re certain CO2 has not gone beyond 250 ppm on average, that the past decade was not, each and every month, above the 20th century average temperature, and that, as Monckton claims, Rachel Carson pulled a miracle, and got EPA to ban DDT in 1972, THEN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME to use that ban to stop DDT use in Africa in 1965, AND that the dumping of DDT by U.S. manufacturers in Africa didn’t do anything at all to put DDT into the hands of African malaria fighters, AND that mosquitoes then migrated from the U.S. to Africa, to spread malaria?

Or, perhaps, do you think discussion might better be advanced with less accusation, and more attempts to understand science, history and public policy?

I repeat, there is not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate hysteria seriously, and I repeat, I have to lead you all by the nose just to back up everything I try to tell you. Yes, Hansen the lunatic tries to sell the runaway greenhouse effect which he says has already happened to Venus, and for all you deniers he says it right here on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACHLayfA6_4

Darrell says: “Are you willing to go on record saying that you’re certain CO2 has not gone beyond 250 ppm on average…”

My hell, where does this idiocy come from? Last I heard we just broke 400ppm–after 15 years of temperature stabilization.

Darrell continues: “…that the past decade was not, each and every month, above the 20th century average temperature…”

So you defenders of Hansen are defending the most unscientific peddler of climate doom who ever was, and the reason you are defending him is you have been duped by his nonsense and other such quackery. None of you know the first thing about climate science. You can vilify Monckton all you want, but at least as far as global warming is concerned, he’s helping to counter the encyclopedia of BS that Gore and Hansen have done so much to promote. Monckton is a thousand times better than Gore, and Gore depended on Hansen’s BS.

Once more, there is not a competent scientist on the planet who falls for this nonsense of climate doom. Warmer is better. Warmer is safer. The Little Ice Age was the kicker. Do any of you quacks think you know what caused it?

where you may witness generally linear increases, where any claimed acceleration is based on a comparison of sat measurement and tide gauge records. That is, you have to compare apples and oranges, but that’s pretty much what the hysterical doom sayers do. And SLR pays no attention to CO2, or even to temperature for that matter. And why should it. T pays no attention to CO2 either. –AGF

1. I looked at Hansen’s video. He says it’s “conceivable” that the Earth could get into a runaway greenhouse mode. Personally, I doubt it, and I tend to think James Hansen emphasizes worst-case scenarios too much. But let’s not exaggerate his claims. He didn’t say it was certainly going to happen, or even that it was likely. He just said it was “conceivable,” and that he doesn’t want to do the experiment to find out whether it would actually happen.

2. Central England is not the globe. Local temperatures randomly fluctuate more than global temperature.

3. If you think global temperature “shows little or no secular correlation to CO2 levels,” you are badly mistaken. The argument (among the experts–not schlubs like Watts) has never been about whether there was a good correlation, or whether CO2 was the ONLY thing driving the changes (it wasn’t). The real argument was about the exact timing–i.e., in Antarctic ice cores, it appears that the temperature rises preceded the CO2 rises by a few hundred years. This wasn’t a deal-killer, because the CO2 effect was supposed to be a feedback, anyway, but some scientists decided to make a more global paleotemperature and CO2 record by looking at ocean sediment cores, and the like, since the last glacial maximum. The result? In Antarctica, the temperature rise preceded CO2, but GLOBALLY, it was the reverse. Here’s the paper:

4. Look around my site. You won’t see me launching into impassioned defenses of James Hansen or Al Gore, because I don’t agree with the way they focus on worst-case scenarios. On the other hand, if those scenarios are possible, even if unlikely, I don’t get too worked up about these guys, because at least they usually add some qualifiers (“possible,” “conceivable,” “could”). You, on the other hand, defend Monckton because he is “countering” people like Hansen or Gore. But if you would bother to click some of the links on this page, you would find out that much of Monckton’s info is blatant lies. Oh, I don’t know whether he knows he’s lying–he might be less than sane–but they are often easily checked falsehoods. You, apparently, think that’s fine.

Perhaps you could point us to the papers claiming an acceleration in SLR by pasting together satellite and tidal gauge readings. I am sure they are out there, but I haven’t read them.

But hmmmm, if it were me doing such a study, what would I do? Well, I think I would use the tidal gauge readings in the same period as the satellite readings, and make sure they are calibrated to give comparable answers. In fact, I really doubt you could even HAVE satellite SL measurements without calibrating on the tidal gauges. If that’s the case, then you really aren’t comparing “apples and oranges,” are you? You’re just using a couple different measurement methods that you already know give you reasonably similar answers.

So look up some of those “quack” papers, and let’s see whether they’re quite as ridiculous as you claim. I’m betting that you haven’t actually read those papers, either, and that you are too unfamiliar with scientific methods to really make such a judgement.

Come on Foster, give it up! You won’t win in here. I hope you get a big check from Heartland, Donors Trust, or some other energy industry funded climate science denier source. If you don’t get paid to spew this nonsense, then you are indeed a brainwashed moron, and what’s worse is that you are working for free when other bloggers are being paid good money! Now how dumb is that? There, I reduced myself to name calling. It’s so much fun! You can do it in return and my feelings won’t get hurt.

If a weatherman tells you a tornado or a hurricane is about to hit, would you ignore it? If not, then why ignore what thousands of climatologists from about 100 different countries that warn us about the long term devastating consequences of global warming? So it’s long term forecast compared to a short term weather forecast. Why would you ignore it? Short term forecast and long term forecast is the only difference between weather predictions and climate predictions worth mentioning. The big difference between weathermen and climatologists us that climatologists have a much more tough degree plan to get through in college than weathermen do.

And the big difference between deniers like Monckton and climatologists is that the deniers never had a single piece of peer reviewed climate research papers published, not one! And now the deniers say they are purposefully blocked from publication. Boo Hoo! Go cry in your beer! They aint published because the crap the peddle is pseudo science, not real science.

I read on the net someplace that a number of TV weathermen are also climate science deniers. Well, they are in the media, and worthwhile for the oil and coal industry to buy off.

I also read on the net that one of the Koch Brothers commented that “we’ve changed the whole conversation about the climate”. Yeah with a millions of $$$ going into climate science deniers pockets and misinformed and uninformed gullible people that buy into their bought and paid for BS. Money talks and BS walks goes the saying.

Watttupwiththat.com????!!!!! That’s one of the biggest climate denial sites going. All the climate change disinfo from all denial sites, Fox New, and conspiratorial and conservative talk show hosts is all funded by big oil and coal firms, such as Koch Industries (the Koch Brothers) who have been called the kingpins of climate science denial.by Greenpeace and a whole expose article on them in 2010 by the New Yorker Magazine. See link:

Here’s a link to a YouTube video showing how the Koch Brothers have spent millions of $$$ funneling climate science denail through front groups think tanks etc. The have spent so much money that the climate denial message has even gotten into church group meeting. The Kochs grew the Tea Party and held nationwide Tea Party meetings. Ask a Tea Partier if man made global warming is for real.

The less one knows about climate science the more one is reduced to absurd argument of authority or non-authority. That’s what this blog is about. Most of these “deniers” work voluntarily in poverty. That they are enriched by big oil or other such perverse sources of funding is an argument which foments in the most ignorant and intellectually bereft minds. Probably a hundred times as much money goes into the alarmism than into the alarm denial. Gore has become a rich man. –AGF

Most of the scientists work in greater poverty. They aren’t funded by Big Oil, and Big Oil works to take their small funding sources away.

This blog isn’t about argument from authority. Watts’s blog often is — we’re supposed to believe people are honest and right in their wacky ideas denying the evidence God gives us because those people have advanced degrees — not because they’ve got scientific research to back their claims (they don’t), but because they’re not part of the Borg.

Of course, neither is anyone else part of the Borg — but that doesn’t seem to cut a lot of mustard with you.

Actually, the enrichment of many of the people on the denialist side, especially the public relations arms in the Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, and other astro-turf programs, is well documented. You just need to look at the IRS forms to see the facts.

A million times as much money goes into denial as goes into climate research. The Chevron ad campaign is annually greater than all the NSF funding for climate research. Exxon-Mobils’ profits for one quarter would pay for all the climate research done in the last decade, perhaps in the 20th century.

Gore became a rich man from Google and Apple.

It’s not that one is rich, it is the source of the money. To figure that out, one needs to have facts. Facts show the planet is warming dangerously, that plants and animals are suffering, and human structures and economies are threatened. But if you think, contrary to all the evidence, that Al Gore got rich off of a movie from which he donated of of his proceeds, then you’ve got a serious issue with figuring out how the world works.

Facts are stubborn things, Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting John Adams. Facts are the milk of science. Got facts?

I don’t know any skeptics who get reimbursed by big oil–I sure don’t. But this is a fool’s argument anyway. What counts is the science, and some one has to pay the scientists, or they have to volunteer their time. Like I’m doing. But of course you know nothing about the science. And always will. –AGF

Foster,
If the science counts, then why aren’t you on the side of the 97% of all climatologists? They are the only type of scientists who are qualified to tell you what the scientific truth is about climate change.

Have you ever noticed that conservative and conspiratorial talk show hosts, blogger deniers, deniers who write opinion pieces for the WSJ or Forbes never quote a real climatologist? And you don’t either. The worst thing that ever happened to radio and TV was the elimination of the fairness doctrine, where all views had to be aired by law, at least as far as political campaigns were concerned. I wish that we could bring the fairness doctrine back and make it stronger by outlawing any climate disinfo propaganda. It should be illegal, just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal. And climate denial propaganda is worse that yelling fire in a theater. If people believe that nothing needs to be done about the climate then they are put to sleep by big oil and coal, and worse than that, the Republicans put their constituents to sleep by denying the climate science and they get paid well by big oil and oil and coal to not only deny the problem, but also to block any climate regulations from passing in Congress.

“The Chevron ad campaign is annually greater than all the NSF funding for climate research…”

Could the argument get any more inane? By such reasoning you yourself are funding denialism by buying gas. Or don’t you buy gas? See, when trying to convince believers we are immediately reduced to a litany of idiocies. They simply can’t think. –AGF

You ridicule James Hansen for saying the West Side Highway would be covered in water. It WAS covered in water, and it’s costing you and me billions of dollars to fix. I don’t think you joke on storm victims is funny.

You think “skeptics” “won” that argument? With skeptics like that, who needs war, famine and pestilence, you know?

NO model predicted a warming hiatus. 15 years and counting. Did Prophet Hansen give us a precise date, or anything approaching such? Did he provide a precise set of causes? Apparently, like the prophet, you blame Sandy on CO2. Not very many scientists do, you know. That’s just tabloid propaganda, of the sort climate prophet Hansen specializes in.

So no, I don’t think your climate ignorance, which borders on perfection, is very funny either. There is nothing scientific about your approach–all is emotional, all is suckering for propaganda. –AGF

All the models offer the warning that warming will make a jerky line. Few of the models predicted denialists would be such jerks, though. Climate scientists made the same error economists made for 200 years, assuming most people are rational.

You know, the models from the 1990s did err. They didn’t predict so much warming in the late 1990s. They didn’t predict that it would be so warm in the first decade of the century.

We’re ahead of predictions, not behind. The “hiatus” you claim has not cooled the planet enough to get us back to the average of the 1990s, which were warmer than most of the 20th century. What you claim as cooling is still hotter than any time in recorded history, across more of the planet that has ever been affected by so much heat for such a long time.

Hottest in recording history? Another fool’s argument–true but irrelevant. Thermometer history is short, and begins in the LIA, since which the planet has been steadily warming, fortunately. Earlier than thermometer history we have the MWP, which Mann (and Bickmore) are at pains to make disappear. But no, as observation fills more of the gaps it is becoming increasingly clear that the MWP was substantially warmer than the present. From China to the Aral Sea, proxies point to medieval warmth that we have yet to match. As do cartography investigations attempting to explain medieval familiarity with the Arctic coast of Eurasia.

North Africa thrived during that blessed warmth, and dried up with the LIA while Europe froze. And it could happen again. That’s why current warming is such good news to all but fools. SLR holding steady at one inch per decade. Beach front property values continue to rise, along with the deltas and atolls. Coral grows ten times as fast as SLR. Only quacks preach doom. –AGF

There’s not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate alarm seriously. And the notion that I’m spreading Big Oil propaganda is most laughable of all. Am I to assume that climate alarm is preventing DeBrane from driving and heating or cooling his house.

Neither is there an intelligent layman who takes this climate alarm seriously. I may safely wager that DeBrane does not, but he’s not smart enough to recognize it.

And may I take a moment to extol Bickmore’s press freedom. SS would never allow such open discussion. Neither would Real Climate, among others. –AGF

Here’s another link mentioning Whats up with that and it’s mainly about all climate denial books are being funded by conservative thinks tanks, as you might be Foster. You never give up spreading climate disinfo, and I would rather think that you might be a paid blogger rather than think that you are gullible enough to believe all of this climate denial trash when you have to whole internet to search through for the truth about the climate change science and the sites that show how climate change denial is funded. Very interesting that this link is called whatsupwiththat.blogspot. It seems they hijacked the Watts brand name, maybe because they want to trick Watts loyal readers to go up to a site that will tell some climate truth.

Barry,
I don’t take anybody’s word for anything unless I know them. I can’t stress enough that there are paid bloggers, website runners, conservative talk show hosts, Republican politicians etc… Foster is so tenacious in defending Whatsupwiththat that I just can’t help but feel the way I do. This link shows that Hearland Institute is funding one of Watt’s projects. So Watts is paid off. I’m sure Watts is not using all of Heatland’s money to do just a project. I’m sure he’s pocketing some of the cash and likewise with cash received elsewhere that can be traced to other places that can then be traced back to the oil and coal industry.

I see my posts have been censored. Bickmore apparently does not allow himself or his lackeys to be beat. I expected better of him but I shouldn’t be surprised–SS and most the other pseudoscience promulgators likewise act like dictatorships. I this gets through, I’ll try posting a link with the disallowed comments. –AGF

Your posts go to the moderation queue if you put links in them, so they don’t appear until I get a chance to check my e-mail and click the mouse a few times. I have it set up that way to catch spammers.

I posted to the comments section of an article about some politician in Britain saying we had to do something about the climate change problem. The comments section was full of climate denial and full of stuff denegrating this politician. My post against the climate deniers never got posted, at least the last time I checked. It seems that denier sites censor their comments. It also happens on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Rarely will a caller get on the air who disagrees with Rush. And as I said before, it’s easily proven that Rush is a climate denier for the Koch Brothers. One day he gets on the air and says global warming is a hoax. It’s a political issue, not a science issue. A few days later he says he golfs and eats dinner with the Koch Brothers. Now how easy is it to figure out that Rush is paid off by the Kochs to BS his listerners into believing global warming is a hoax?

Christopher Monckton was Margaret Thatchers’ policy adviser.
Did Monckton go to the Bilderburg with Thatcher?
Did Monckton advise Thatcher to attend Bilderburg conference?
Did Monckton ever criticise Thatcher for attending Bilderburg?
If not, why not?
Given that Bilderburg are pro industry/manufacturing/business, then it stands to reason that Monckton, Thatcher
and Bilderburgers are all on the same side.
The same side who claim there is no climate change because pollution equals business profit.

Monckton is a climate change fraud and a tool of the Satanist / Scientologist NWO.

Barry,
It’s the conspircacy radio listener radio crowd which hosts the likes of Alex Jones and Clyde Lewis, both of which by the way are climate change deniers. Alex Jones is clearly a denier for the oil and coal barons, the Koch Brothers. There is a Alex Jones video on YouTube that is a snippet of one of his radio shows. A caller asks him about the Koch Brothers and he says they are angel cakes comared to George Soros. Soros wants to help this country. The Kochs want to control everyone and everything in it. So Soros and the Kochs are enemies. So you can see who butters Alex Jones’ bread.

These conspriacy talkers often refer their listeners to the internet to search for conspiracy stuff.

good points ihat, especially the last one about polution equals business profit.

I don’t know much about the new world order NWO or Monckton’s connections to it, so would you please explain both to me.

I saw a video of Monckton with a bunch of college students around him. One of them put a kick me sign on his back. Even though that’s an old trick, it was still very funny to see him unaware that the kick me sign was stuck to the back of his suit jacket.

Here’s what the IPCC says about Hansen’s extremism (p.90): “Some thresholds that allwould consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For inst
ance, a “runaway greenhouse effect”—analogous to Venus–
appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by an
thropogenic activities.”

Read all on this next link, but go to the subheading runaway greenshouse effect first to see that there once was a runaway greenhouse effect some 55 million years ago. The IPCC said that it took 20000 years for it to happen, but now because of CO2 emissions, it will take about 100 years.

Foster, I like how you never give up your devotion to climate disinfo sources and love to quote them.

I agree that Hansen was waxing a bit over dramatic in the video. On the other hand, the chain of events he described is certainly possible (we don’t have a good handle on how quickly methane in gas hydrates and permafrost could be released.) Whether it’s considered a “likely” scenario, or not, Hanson doesn’t want to find out. Neither do I.

And so, I spend my time debunking people like Monckton, who aren’t just overly dramatic for my taste–they are patently dishonest.

you have your heads in the sand …really please look at the evidence and dont shoot the messenger as he is not a scientist he is just a fellow who has researched and asks the questions…. try it really be open minded to all possabilities and situations.. peace and love…….xoxo freeman

That’s telling him Barry. Please tell me what scientific degrees you have and what is you scientific specialty? I’m just curious. I’m in electronics and computers. That’s something scientific. I’ve got a Cisco CCNA and an AAS in electronics technology. I’m taking an MS 20008 R2 Enterprise server course. I was asking what you had so I thought it only fair to tell you what I have.

Be open minded, yes, but don’t be open minded once you find out absolutes like 2+2=4 and that 97% of climatologists agree that we are in a lot of trouble for recklessly burning fossil fuels, and that the evidence is all over the NET that big oil and coal, largely the Koch Brothers of Koch Industries have spent millions of $$$ over the last 20 years bribing Republican politicians to deny the climate science and kill any greenhouse gas reduction legislation, and that conservative and conspiractorial sources are all sources of climate denial by the well funded oil and coal climate denial campaign, and that climatologists are quoted and some have videos on the net telling us we are in an S___ load of trouble.

Once I figured all this out, thanks to the miracle we call the internet, I closed my mind. Absolutely nothing anybody can say that contradicts what I know to be true will change my mind. And nothing anybody can say will get me to vote Republican. The only way I would vote Republican is if someone held a gun to my head at the voting machine. The only exception to my rule is if a Republican candidate like Chris Christie has come clean about the seriousness of the climate problem and promised that they won’t take any money from big oil and coal anymore. Chris Christie has yet to make that pledge, but at least he doesn’t deny the climate problem. Oh, and they have to promise not to take any money from the Kochs for the other horrible things they are doing to us besides funding climate denial. They want out minimum wage, our Social Security, our Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, unions, the want our country too! They want gone anything that they could be taxed on. They pay ALEC to pass laws in their favor. They and other spoiled rotten billionaires want to tell us how we have to live and what laws we have to live by. As Lisa Simpson, once quipped, “The rich know what’s best for the rest of us.”

Just seen this looney Lord in a ‘Worlds Apart’ interview on RT today, claimed that Saddam Hussain was killing “more people every month or so” than died during the entire Iraq war and that Americas wars are all about helping people and have nothing to do with any imperialist agenda, that “Greenpeace was taken over by marxists because they needed a new outlet after the fall of the Berlin Wall” and that CO2 is “good for the atmosphere “because it makes the trees green” and it will be cheaper to deal with the consequences of global warming after the fact, than to try to do anything to prevent or ameliorate it.
As a reasonably intelligent layperson I am surprised at the amount of attention this apologist for obviously vested interests gets. It would appear that there is money to be made in having an ability to spout total crap on television with a straight face. Gizza job, I could do that!

You’re a real pip offering up a link to a climate denial website. This piece looks like it came from a legitamite science website, but it has to be a doctored or completely made up piece. I looked over the website and it has it’s all about climate science denial pieces.

FYI, if you want to know about climate change, ask a degreed climatologist like Michael Mann or James Hansen, or any of the climatologists who took part in the latest IPCC 2013 climate change report.

Of course, if you are a paid energy industry shill, then spreading disinfo is how you make a living. If so, how do you sleep at night, knowing that this garbage you spread is all going to confuse the public which needs to make good decisions about what to do about climate change/global warming?

Just a regular old lady. Wonder if people at the bottom of the climate fray are tired of both the advocates and the deniers. Advocates won’t stop poluting the world unless they can strong arm the rest of the world population and tax them to death. The deniers want to maintain their status quo. Neither is concerned for the population at large. Self-interest looms over both groups like a dirty cloud.

The fact is that most of our carbon pollution comes from things like coal-fired power plants that everyone uses. So essentially, you are saying that “advocates” have to voluntarily live in the stone age before you will believe that they are not being “self-interested” by saying we ought to hook up our power plants to some different energy sources. I’m a “militant moderate” myself, but this kind of I’m-not-going-to-agree-with-anyone-so-I-can-feel-morally-superior-while-still-refraining-from-actually-doing-anything-constructive attitude you display merely goes to show that you can’t be bothered to try to think the issue through. If you actually care about your children or grandchildren, you should do some research and take a stand.

Kari Norgaard versus Lord Monkton or Koch versus Rothschilds. Oh, and heaven forbid don’t forget the children and future generations. The children become part of the equation everytime someone wants something. Sorry for being so cynical but “the children” have been used so many times one becomes hardened. I agree that climate change is in part man made, but is also due to natural phenomena. Humans should implement realistic plans to reduce their footprint while accepting that nature will determine the rest. Don’t want to sound like I’m pontificating, but the world is in a lot of trouble right now so if both sides can’t compromise the other 98% of the human race may decide they have more important issues to deal with. Won’t bother you with any more of my ramblings, but thank you for your time.

Can you point to any climate scientists who have said there is no such thing as natural climate change? No? Well then, can you see what you are doing? You are falsely attributing an absurd position to EVERYONE on one side so that you can avoid doing ANYTHING until these imaginary people back off their absurd position. You are sitting on your hands until THEY decide to compromise. What about YOU? Do YOU have any ideas about what we should do? Have YOU proposed any specific courses of action? Are YOU willing to take some compromise course of action that isn’t exactly what you want, simply because you think something ought to be done and you are willing to bend a bit to achieve it?

Don’t claim to be a moderate unless you actually are willing to compromise to get something done. What you are doing is taking an extreme position (doing nothing), while pretending that it’s everyone else’s fault that you aren’t willing to do anything.

I would like to know what BB thinks nowadays about Mann’s “hockey stick,” once a central ornament of the propaganda machine but now seemingly falling out of favor even among the most devout and dogmatic believers. I see inane phrases like “the discredited Heartland Institute,” but nothing like “the discredited hockey stick.” In fact I hardly see from BB any factual statements susceptible to falsification whatever–just badmouthing of smart skeptics. Hard to know what he believes. Or if he is at all honest. So:

1) Is the schtick still valid? (Have we surpassed MWP temps?)
2) Has warming stalled? Since when? At what point should it be taken seriously?
3) Is SLR a serious threat? Does CO2 cause it? Is it eustatic or steric?
4) Are storms increasing in frequency and severity due to GHG’s?
5) Have the CRU crew been honest and forthright since day one?
6) Do you run this blog pro bono?

The only people who think the original “hockey stick” has been discredited are those who live in the weird little alternate universe where over a dozen subsequent studies using different methods, but coming to essentially the same conclusions, never happened.

And no, I don’t get paid for doing this blog.

As for the rest, look it up. I’m not here to do the homework of people who can’t be bothered to look anything up for themselves.

Climatologist Michael Mann says that there has been a lot of work done by climatologists since the hockey stick was created years ago that confirms that the hockey stick curve is correct.
Please stop repeating old tired climate denial stuff. And show me your tax report from last year. Let me see if you got any money from conservative think tanks like Heartland, CEI,CATO, or from so-called charity groups like Donor’s Trust, or Donor’s Capital Fund, or from front groups like Freedom Works, or Americans For Prosperity, or lobby groups like The American Petroleum Institute. Are you wiling to share your tax return with me or anybody else who asks for it? Please put up or shut up.

I think that AG Foster is unlikely to do any homework; why start now when he’s clearly not done any since first appearing here in June? Not only that, but he displays one of the “sceptic” tropes of repeating claims as if they haven’t been refuted many times over.

If I left out the words ‘may be’ then that would be an accusation. So I didn’t say he was definitely a paid oil and coal shill.

Notice Foster uses words like ‘fraudulent’ in reference to Michael Mann’s work on the hockey stick. Only the seriously uniformed and misinformed and indocrinated conservative knotheads believe the propaganda that the oil and coal industry has pushed on unsuspecting people who listen to conservative sources and don’t take in any other opinions from alternative sources. Notice how the conservative media bad mouths liberals, but it is liberals who are taking in excellent information from climatologists like Michael Mann and James Hansen who understand the truth about the dangers of putting gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere every year. No wonder the conservative media says not to pay attention to the liberals; their bad, their evil, their misguided.

Foster gives a slick presentation. He’s a real pro at climate denial. He sticks to conservative and conspiritorial garbage like the discredited climategate controversy. News for Foster. There were investigations done that proved the climate data is sound and the climategate issue is a non issue. Being as slick as Foster is in his presentation, gives me more reason to suspect, but not able to PROVE that he has been hired to blog as the internet points out some bloggers definitely are hired to do.

Let Foster prove me wrong. Again, I say, let him show me his tax return for last year and see where he gets his income from. Put up or shut up.

Global warming fanatics are by far the stupidest, most ignorant dupes who ever inhabited the planet. There is not a competent scientist on the globe who ever suckered for this nonsense. Everything they believe has been hashed over and refuted many times over, and they tell us who know the score that we’re working for Big Oil! Unbelievably stupid fools!

Now for any of you suckers who know how to read (as if there were such a thing as a literate GW believer), here’s one of a hundred pieces I could recommend for the beginning of your education:http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

But since most are no more willing to read the “innocent” emails from “climate gate” than I am to read whatever propaganda BB has copied and repeated, here’s one little piece of science: a ‘tel’ or ‘tell’ is a hill in Arabic and Hebrew, but a man made hill in archeological parlance. You can see one in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell

It took about 3ky to make that hill, primitive people with no machinery, by accident, without even trying. Building debris, garbage, trapped dust, raised the ground 3 feet per century, just by not sweeping the floor. That’s about the rate the alarmists claim sea level will rise in the next century, if it ever gets around to the promised acceleration–we see no sign of SL breaking out of its 80 year old rise rate of 2 or 3 mm/year. That’s an inch per decade, all you scientifically illiterate fools, one third the rate at which Tel Barri rose by accident, without trying, without machinery, just by not sweeping the streets.

Of course coral grows much faster, and bricklayers with a purpose raise cities 10,000 times faster, and built sea walls a hundred years ago with ease and effectiveness in order to withstand hundred year storms. And of course sea level entered its current regime of rise about 80 years ago, before CO2 became a concern or cause for concern, and of course there is no modern correlation between SLR and CO2 except in the minds of the non-mathematical or graphically inept. But that’s the fairytale Bickmore so idiotically buys and repeats: fear all who dwell here–CO2 will submerge you.

And this while US CO2 production drops, but is made up for in China ten times over. If all you duped Anglophiles turned off your gas and light switches forever, it wouldn’t make a pinhead of difference–China’s CO2 production is skyrocketing. And Gore and Mann and all the priests of doom fly off to far off places every week–Tahiti here we come–to preach, to plan, to conspire, to dupe all you idiots into driving smaller cars while they fly in smaller private jets. There was never so much idiocy, stupidity, incompetence, gullibility, or irrationality so widely spread in the history of the post-enlightened earth.

Insurance always has and only can raise the cost of health care. To lower the cost you have to do like the Cubans did: flood the market with government educated doctors. Let them work for decades as taxi drivers, then send them to rural Bolivia when the socialists take over. On rare occasions some communist programs actually work–at least in very poor countries.

But how can we expect Obama cheering pseudo-science ideologues to read good educational literature?

As for the hokey stick, the best evidence is not modeled but anecdotal: which is the fastest receding glacier on the globe? Jorge Montt in Patagonia. What did its rapidly melting ice uncover a few years back? A forest from the MWP. A MWP, that is, which doesn’t exist anywhere in the ice covered world according to Mann’s hokey stick, especially in the SH.

Which NH receding glacier has likewise uncovered a medieval forest? Exit Glacier in Alaska. We might ask, did these two glaciers just happen to cover up the only two MWP forests that existed? Or was it generally warmer when these forests grew than it is now? So you gullible fools can believe Mann’s fraudulent proxies and models or you can believe your own eyes. I’ll go with my eyes. –AGF

Since ObamaCare passed and started being enacted, health care cost inflation has fallen from 20%/year in 2008 and almost as high in 2009, to 4% in 2012, and 1.3% in 2013. Health care costs are dropping, preventive vaccines keep more people out of hospitals and the grave.

Oh, and by the way, the first graduates of the ObamaCare Health Service Corps have already hit the ground in nursing ranks, and will be in clinics across America in the physican ranks next year.

Good health cuts costs of health care; though ObamaCare didn’t have a lot aimed at creating good health, what it did have has had dramatic results already.

In fact the health care inflation rate bottomed out at 2% in August, and has climbed up to 2.3% since. Dramatically lower with the recession and Medicare cut backs, but costs are still rising, not “dropping,” as you say. One must learn the meaning of words like “acceleration” and “inflation.” And United Way, Medicaid, and many charities and community health care providers have been providing flu shots at reduced rates or pro bono for years.

So precisely to which government program do you attribute a causative correlation between Obamacare and inoculation rates? And for that matter, to which ACA regulations in particular do you ascribe a drop in health care inflation rates (ignoring your confusion of lower inflation with lower absolute costs)? This is exactly the sort of math and logic that the CRU crew rely on:
meaningless psuedo-correlation devoid of any mechanistic relationship.

For all his failings as a politician, psephologist, physician, and puzzle designer, Monckton, who was born a commoner like his father and grandfather before him , does credit to the proletariat as a first-rate shirtmaker and livryman oof the Worshpful Company of Broderers.

Monckton shirts have given me excellent service since I first bought them from his King’s Road shop in 1996, and I am mystified as to why such an ornament to haberdashery as he should abandon his profession to become a second string climate crank?

We colonial rebels don’t put much stake in titles of nobility, but we know the difference between your “nobles” and “commoners,” and we know that by your definitions “commoners” are not “hereditary peers,” as viscounts surely are. Mr. Seitz must therefore show that neither Monckton nor his father were entitled to the title “viscount,” or that one or the other or both were bastards.

Until he does, we must conclude that Russell Seitz is a liar, or a bastard, or both. But we already know that, like Bickmore, he must resort to fools’ arguments to prop up global warming in the 3rd millennium, seeing as the warming stopped in the 2nd. –AGF

Perhaps he means that Monckton didn’t inherit his title until 2006, and up to that time I suppose he was a “commoner.” That seems like a reasonable, and probably true, interpretation. However, it does bother me that Monckton falsely claims to be a member of Parliament, which he never has been. (His father was until 1999.)

“As the title in question was only created years after Monckton , his father , and his grandfather were born, none of them were born to it..

“It is therefore an absurd lie to insist that any of them were styled lords until the title’s creation.

“If. God willing, Monckton produces one, his male heir will be the first to be styled ‘Honorable’ , pro forma, from the day of his birth.” =================================================.
I stand stonied and corrected: his lordship was born a commoner, and remained so till the age of five. This is surely sufficient to discredit any argument his newfangled lordship has proffered, and to add Seitz’s proven expertise to that of BB in assuring us of the looming apocalypse that awaits all who fail to confess humankind’s guilt. Gaia is wrapped up with fences and shrouded in CO2 and is not likely to forgive us this time. –AGF

You have to be a liar through and through to use such an argument–and only the mathematically illiterate will not easily see through such a graph. It shows that the average temperature of the last decade was higher than the average of each previous decade, which of course no one is disclaiming. What we are saying, and which no graph can deny, is that T quit rising at around the turn of the century, and if the current trend continues for the remainder of the decade, the sort of graph that Seits so dishonestly parades around would also show a flattening.

The question becomes, what motivates Russell Seitz to stoop to such transparently dishonest argumentation? Is he paid to lie? Is he incompetent? Does he think the greater truth justifies such a lie? (The “truth” that with sufficient filtering and averaging the warming–which will certainly continue as he believes–will make the current pause fade into insignificance.)

And I challenge Barry Bickmore to disavow this nonsense: if BB has a shred of intellectual integrity, he ought to admit that Seitz’s argument is disingenuous. But I suppose he too thinks the greater good is at stake: we warmists had best stick together lest the deniers win the day. Perception is everything. And eventually the melt will get serious and the seas will rise. And only the Chinese can stop it but we should at least set an example as we surrender the planet.

AG, my problem here is that I teach a graduate-level geostatistics class, so I can’t very well disavow something that is a reasonable statistical argument. First, DC made that argument 4 years ago. Second, the people who harp on the fact that the trend in surface temperature over the past several years is statistically indistinguishable (at 95% confidence) from zero always seem to forget that a) the trend is still positive, and b) it is also statistically indistinguishable from the overall rate of warming for the past several decades. I get the feeling they are either trying to manipulate people, or they don’t know what it means to say a trend is “statistically significant”. Which are you? When you say “T quit rising at around the turn of the century,” I get the feeling that maybe you don’t understand the concept of “cherry picking,” either.

Cherry picking? I’m picking the maggot out of a fine ripe cherry that someone else picked.
It’s really pretty simple: since 2000 has SST climbed? No.
Does that mean it won’t start up again? No.
Has T surpassed that of the MWP? No.
Are we still recovering from the LIA? Yes.

Cherry picking? The hype is based on 3 decades of warming. The counter hype is based on half that length of no warming. Decades do not represent centuries, and centuries don’t represent millennia. The current pause is just a little worrisome because it suggests a greater possibility that we will return to an LIA, and cold is a whole lot worse than warm.

See, the farce and the fraud is not just that the globe is warming from GHG’s, it is that the globe is warming and warming is bad. Warming, if true, is a very good thing. –AGF

Foster, you sure exasperate me. You remind me of radio host Clyde Lewis of the show Ground Zero. He does climate denial way too much. I’ve called in a few times and beat him up verbally. He’s gotten good at fighting back, but what he says is all B.S.

Some of what you say, I would like to comment on constructively.

We could get colder for a while because the arctic is warming, and in so doing, it belches cold air down to the lower latitudes. A couple of years ago, it did it in the direction of Eastern Europe. I saw photos that were taken that showed an unbelievable amount of snow. It looked 15 to 20 feet high! That very well could be the result of excess co2 in the atmosphere causing more water vapor to accumulate, causing excess rain and snow fall. One photo showed a policeman unable to open his police car door because it froze up and jammed. Now that’s cold!

Another thing that could drive us into an ice age is the slowing and eventual stopping of the thermal halene current that brings warm water up from the tropics to the US east coast and to Western Europe. The melting arctic ice is causing fresh water to pour into the ocean, diluting the salt water. The current needs salt to make it work, and the melting ice is cutting back on the percentage of salt content of the ocean water. Years ago, I saw a TV program on this that predicted the US east coast and Western Europe might be in an ice age as early as 2018 because of this. I bet a friend of mine a case of beer that it will happen by 2018. If I’m wrong, I’m only out of beer money.

Global warming isn’t a farce and a fraud. That’s a conservative and conspiratorial media talking point, most likely gotten from some oil and coal funded conservative think tank.

Warming is good, but out of control warming is bad. I suggest everyone reading this blog go up to YouTube and see the videos that climatologists James Hansen and Michael Mann have up there. People, please get your info straight from the horses’ mouths. Don’t rely on somebody who doesn’t have a degree in climatology to tell you ‘the truth’. I find that even the honestly duped and mislead, mislead others, thinking that they have the truth about global warming, when in fact, it is the 97% of climatologists from around the world who have the truth and we better all wise up and start listening to them instead of paid off oil and coal shills or people who have been duped, indoctirnated, and brainwashed by such who repeat the garbage they have heard. Just like in computers, garbage in-garbage out.

My last two posts haven’t flown, so let my try a short one with no links. DeBrane, everything you believe is BS. You worry about melt water bringing about another Younger Dryas when SLR has remained steady at 2-3mm/year for 80 years. You accept the two biggest quacks who ever lived as competent authorities, without responding in the least to my noting of Jorge Montt and Exit glaciers, which all by themselves debunk Mann’s hokey stick, as if it needing any further debunking after what S&M and M&M did to it. Oh, and months ago you called WUWT something like a “discredited website,” as though you could judge BYU by its honor code. And you appeal to this 97% nonsense of John Cook, which has been more thoroughly debunked than any piece of idiocy of the 21st century. And you think I’m the one who’s brainwashed!

YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING! Every sentence you write reveals ignorance nothing short of perfect. Talk some science if you know any, but you don’t. Even BB is educated compared to you, and he doesn’t know much. Hope my other posts appear sometime. –AGF

Michael Mann and James Hansen quacks? I can’t stop laughing. Do you have a doctoral degree in climatology? You aint got nothin’ but a slick presentation. You must be a lawyer. Most of them are very slick.

Mann’s hockey stick debunked? On a YouTube video, Mann said that work done since the hockey stick came out has confirmed it’s validity.

I don’t know anything? That’s a good one. I get my info from videos from climatologists, news articles about climate change and climatgologists, and liberal rags like the Guardian. Liberals tell the truth about climate change, but liberals in the media lie about race and crime. One liberal talk show hosts said whites commit more crimes than blacks. Oh that’s killer. Channel 11 WPIX in NYC aired a breakdown of gun crime statistics in NYC, 70% black 25% hispanic, 3% whitel. So liberals and conservatives lie on behalf of their constituencies. The Dems don’t deny climate change because they have an environmental base that they need to vote for them. They just quietly do too little or next to nothing to put forth legislation to solve the climate change problem. The GOP lies about climate change because they have a bunch of Tea Partiers they need to cater to and bribes from oil an coal companies that keep them fat and happy.

All those nation wide Tea Party meetings were sponsored by the Koch Brothers, and their reps told the Tea Partiers that global warming was a hoax. They own a big oil and coal company. Can’t be no global warming when there’s money to be made selling fossil fuels. People need to be brainwashed and indoctinated so they don’t believe in global warming.

But I do digress. I’ll take my info from degreed climatoligists, not from some guy in a blog or any misleading ‘evidence’ he chooses to call my attention to.

You’re an amazingly slick guy Foster. But climate deniers are losing their argument with the public as extreme weather events mess with peoples’ lives. The majority of people in the US and Europe now believe in global warming.

Oh, and Watts also agreed with Monckton that the EPA ban on using DDT on cotton in the U.S., in 1972, caused WHO stop their malaria eradication campaign in Africa, seven years earlier — and that’s supposed to be some major sin, though malaria infection rates and death rates, and numbers, have continued to decline.

I frequently dispute articles posted at WUWT. Experts, retired climatologists, ICPP contributors, knowledgeable laymen, not so knowledgeable laymen, and a few downright quacks, all get to sing in the choir. And nobody gets kicked out for no good reason, unlike the sites the CRU quacks have set up, where even their exposed charter emails reveal their intention of tightly censoring the discussion–emails which I doubt your sources ever spoon fed you. Accordingly, I can only be impressed by your shallowness and narrowness when you denounce such an eclectic website as anything but that: eclectic. Some of the best scientists around contribute regularly: Ferdinand Englebeen, Robert G. Brown, Leif Svalgaard, Jim Steele (amphibian expert), and regulars who work diligently in a futile attempt to keep the fanatics honest: Watts, Bob Tisdale, Willis Eschenbach.

Honest, expert discussion, interspersed with naive and at times idiotic comments, just as at any blog. It is in no way an ideologically dedicated blog (like this one), except that it invites critical discussion from all areas of the natural sciences. Knowledgeable insiders come out of the woodwork to report the perennial shenanigans of the IPCC, CRU, professional liars, dupes, and unmitigated media bias. One cannot summarily dismiss WUWT without automatically exposing oneself as both narrowly informed and irrationally postured. To dismiss skeptical websites is to declare intentionally invincible ignorance.

The fact is, back in 2000 the radical consensus was that snow was a thing of the past. I could post a couple of sources for that but then this post would not post on this Mickey Mouse blog. That was after 3 decades of warming, and the radicals were confident that that warming would continue for two more decades, by which time snow would be a “thing of the past” (or some such quote, never challenged by any of the radicals’ peers). Of course now that it’s snowing in Jerusalem and Cairo, the radicals have changed their story drastically–rare snow is now to be expected, and is still a sign of global warming, err, climate change. Of course the truth is they make up the rules and change the story as they go, but the ignorant and foolish, the people with short memories eat it all up, and keep talking about how much warmer it is now than when they were young, and how the climate quacks are proven right at every turn.

We should stick rather to the argument at hand. How have Exit and Jorge Montt glaciers managed to uncover forests that grew before the Little Ice Age? What does this tell us about secular climate change and about the Hokey Stick? BB and DeBrane have not uttered a word about these glaciers. Do you doubt my telling of the facts? Do you know how to google? How do you explain the fairly indisputable reality that as some glaciers recede they reveal forests which grew before these glaciers covered them up? And we’re not talking microclimates, we’re talking about glaciers situated poles apart.

And you won’t find a word of this mentioned by Hansen or Mann–those two quacks–because for one thing they don’t want to hear about it, and for another, if they knew anything about it they would do their best to keep it from you. You won’t read about these forests in Wikipedia, Real Climate, or in any of the mass media outlets. You will have trouble finding anything about them even on the skeptical blogs. But if you just google Exit Glacier you’ll find it on the first reference, and as for Jorge Montt, if you have trouble be sure to include the author’s name, Andres Rivera.

I could go on and on about the devious hokey stick politics, and the doubt expressed in the leaked emails even within the inner circles–some of Mann’s colleagues fretted that he went too far with too little data–and I could try to get you to read a hundred other things that have ages since blown the schtick out of the water, but the reason we are here arguing is that you don’t read. You are like geologists and paleontologists who base their science on Genesis and refuse to read Darwin and Huxley. Hell, I’ll be lucky if you even read this. –AGF

The best proof you are right, of course is that we are all now under 14 feet of water. While we keep arguing factoids and shoveling crap at each other the water just keeps rising! What’s Moncton have to say about that? “Gurgle gurgle”?

A “rube” maybe, but he is dead serious, and he is on your side. Meet Dr. Kenrick Leslie, Executive Director of the CARICOM Climate Change Centre in Belize. Like most alarmists he has never seen a sea level chart, and like most alarmists he takes his cues from the likes of James Hansen. Hansen takes the IPCC to task in these terms (Environ. Res. Lett. 2:024002, p.6):

“As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1cm for the decade 2005 – 2015 and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant yields sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century. Of course I can not prove that my choice of a 10-year doubling time for non linear-response is accurate, but I am confident that it provides a far better estimate than a linear response to the ice sheet component of sea level rise.”

The past then is no guide to the future; as Hansen quotes his own work more than anyone’s, he reveals how our doom as he envisions it must rely on models, melting glacier anecdote, his idiosyncratic scenarios, and anything but empirical data. He takes his peers to task for being too cautious, while Monckton faults the IPCC for throwing caution to the wind.

The fact remains that Monckton’s appraisal can be better aligned with that of the IPCC than can Hansen’s–for that matter Axel-Morner too–zero SLR is closer to IPCC scenarios than 5m. A non-linear function based on what has not been seen qualifies Hansen as an irrational pessimist, a rabble rouser, a quack. Bickmore’s choice of going after Monckton rather than Hansen shows his true colors: he is Hansen’s disciple. –AGF

Only a particular kind of fool does not recognize that I was putting words in Hansen’s mouth: Hansen would maintain that “the past…is no guide to the future,” since his predictions cannot be extrapolated from past SLR trends. And Ed Darrell is a lawyer? Pity his sucker clients. –AGF

Oh please Foster, go away with you climate denial B.S. and your insults toward good people like Ed Darrell.

You never responded to my request that you show a copy of last year’s tax return to me and for that matter, to everyone else here. I’ll give you one of my email addresses if you say you are willing to send it to me. I want see who your work for and how much you earn and see if anyplace you get income from is traceable back to the fossil fuel industry. Of course, nowadays, dark money from charity groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund launder oil and coal money into the accounts of climate deniers in the media.

Prove once and for all that you don’t have any fossil fuel connections and I’ll never bring up requesting your tax return again.

DeBrane, like Darrell, constantly reminds the intelligent–and GW skepticism has monopoly on intelligence–how bereft of intelligence are the believers. If he had spent ten minutes investigating the subject he would know that the CRU has been funded by Big Oil for years, and that the lies they spread about skeptics being funded by big corporations are simply subterfuge: truth inverted.

DeBrane, you moron, at least 99.99% of us skeptics don’t get a dime from anybody. We are in the business of refuting junk science, which threatens to throw us back into the Dark Ages. Talk science, you fool, not tax refunds. Talk about Exit and Jorge Montt glaciers, and why nobody mentions the forests they’ve uncovered. There is only one reason you continue to argue here: you are a hopelessly deluded dupe.
–AGF

Foster, you amaze me. You get your stuff from denial websites and puke it back up in this blog. I googled CRU and big oil and got a lot of climate denier hits, even one from that Koch Brothers shill Alex Jones. And there’s a link from your bud at What’s up with that. See link:

I’m talking tax refunds???!!!! Don’t you understand English? I asked you to send your tax return to me and everyone here so we all can see who you work for, where your income comes from, and you either ignore my request or talk about tax refunds. Stop avoiding my request. Tell me you will send me your last year’s tax return and I will give you one of my email addresses that you can attach the return and send it to.

Flash! This from the Telegraph???!!!, the newspaper that has done many climate denial editorials! This link just goes to show that the newspapers print the news without spin, but are free to spin in their editorial sections.
Notice that there’s oodles of climate denial in the comments after this article.

When are you going to send me that tax return Foster? You can black out your SS# and home address, but please don’t black out your name or any of the names of your employers or financial contributors. Stop obfuscating and start sending, please! Notice I said please. I can be polite at times. LOL!!!

Well, DeBrainless, does the reference you don’t quite supply (first entry on list) provide proof for my statement or doesn’t it? Does the “denial website” show an inside email of the CRU crew going after oil money or doesn’t it?

And as for Jorge Montt–just when we think it couldn’t get any more stupid–three points:
1) JM is the fastest receding glacier in the world.
2) The short term recession rate is determined by fjord bathymetry.
3) It has revealed the remains of a forest that grew before the LIA.

Now for the innocent bystander–because DeBrainless will never get it–the “Telegraph” article reports #1 only. A few papers reported #’s 1 & 2. No paper reported #3. And of course ignoring or suppressing point number three is what I’m talking about since, along with other mountains of evidence, it undermines the “hockey stick,” which so much of the public and scientific world has accepted as good science. That is, MSM, RC, Wikipedia, etc., ignore #3 because it exposes the believers for the dupes they are, and in the case of DeBrainless, always will be.

And because I know how to argue good science it logically follows in the mind of DeBrainless that I am in the pay of Big Oil, so he calls for my tax refund…er…return. Well, not all believers are quite as dumb as DeBrainless but they’re still pretty clueless. –AGF

Foster, you’re probably a nice guy when you’re not doing you expertly done climate denial work. Lord Monckton is an expert too. Because I take my info from climatologists, truthful news pieces and articles about climate science and climate science denial, I can’t take much of what you say seriously, especially your earlier assertion the 99% of skeptics aren’t funded by big oil and coal. If this is true, why is about a billion dollars a year in dark money going into funding organizations the media outlets that fund climate denial? Here’s a link to dark money.

Here’s an article about a climate denial think tank that has had complaints that it misled the public and it may be shut down. Sort of reminds me of the Michael Mann court case against the National Review. Climate deniers are going to go down when the results of that trial become public!

I’m having trouble googleing for good info on your point 3 forest LIA stuff. Can’t waste any more time on this today. But before I go, I’ll repeat my request to see your tax return. If you are innocent as the new driven snow, what have you got to hide?

Mr. DeBrane, climate science, like any other science, takes cause and effect for granted. If a glacier seems to be melting abnormally we should look for a legitimate cause. Is CO2 magic? Can it melt glaciers without first increasing the temperature? Would it not seem prudent to check the T history of a glacier before pronouncing GW melt doom on it? Must our climatological world view be based on yellow journal headlines?

…where it is claimed that us deniers are funded to the tune of $1 billion per year to deceive y’all. I sure wish I knew where that money was going–I’d like a small piece of it. Do you know where it’s going? Are the funders getting their money’s worth? Will you see a climate change denier commercial at the Superbowl half time? With a tenth of that we could buy the whole program.

Like I try to tell you, this is just BS propaganda from the GW lying machine. The reason you can’t find anything about the glacier forests in Wikipedia is they have full time people working to keep climate change skepticism out of it. We can’t even afford to match the fanatics, let alone buy Wikipedia. And I already told you in a former post, look under Andres Rivera to read about Jorge Montt’s trees.

My tax return? You can contact my lawyer. I pay him a million dollars an hour to handle my light work. Here’s his number…damn, can’t remember it. I’ll have my butler get in touch with him and get back to you later. Cheers, –AGF

I looked at your NOAA link and I looked at another NOAA link that showed that the Alps are an exception to the ice loss rate going on elsewhere, so you are cherry picking like all climate deniers do. The question is why. I’d still like to see your tax return to see who you work for. No reason not to share if you have nothing to hide.

I’ve been up to Climate Audit site. It’ just another climate denial site and worthless to any person serious about learning climate change science from degreed climatologists like Michael Mann.

It’s going to be great fun watching Mikey drive the National Review Online into financial ruin when he wins his libel with malice lawsuit.

Yes he did say that and I remember a news story about a teacher taking what Gore said and telling the class what he said.
Many of the children had trouble sleeping that night.
The teacher no doubt added to what Gore said but Gore did say it.

From Al Gore not what someone said he said but Al Gore himself saying it. And he went out of his way with video showing what he says will happen. I can see why kids would have trouble sleeping
if the teacher played this in class.

You claimed that “Gore… said by now I would be underwater”. Can you point to the exact spot in that video where Gore said that BY NOW anyone would be under water? No, you can’t. Because you just made that up. You and Monckton should get along great! He likes to make stuff up, too!

All one has to do is Google Al Gore predictions and a sea rise he said was going to happen. With that sea rise many people would be under water. Nothing man can do can come close to the amount of energy we are hit with by the sun. Take a small magnifying glass and shine it on paper and you have fire.
So that is 2 or 3 inches of surface that the sun hits and it is enough to start a fire. Now think of how much energy the earth is hit with. Man is not in control the sun is. Why is nobody saying how much more C02 from all the heating that is needed because of the cold winter. Funny we are told c02 is so bad but cold makes more of it. For less co2 it needs to be warmer but it is a no no to bring that up because it shows how stupid all this man made global talk is. What would kill us all is another ice age but something strange happened it warmed up with no cars or coal burning.

If all you have to do is Google it, why don’t you do that, and tell us where we can find Al Gore predicting that BY NOW, sea level would rise to inundate… wherever you are? Because that’s what you claimed.

Monckton, a better man than Al Gore. Monckton is a lier, an energy industry shill. I’ll give him that + he knows how to fudge math, facts and figures. But if you ask any qualified Climatologist who is far more educated on the climate issue than any lay person in Monckton’s live dog and pony show act, he will tell you Monckton is not being factual. I think it was 3 climatologists during one of the Congresional climate change hearings that I saw a video of up on the net, who politely told the Congress that they see nothing correct in what Monckton says. They were much too polite. they should have called him a lier and called him out on his energy industry connections and called the Republican Congressmen out on their energy industry connections. The Dems most likely have those connections, but do a climate change gig once in a while to shill for their environmental voting base. I’m sure the Dems don’t really give a crap. Maybe, just Maybe Dem Sheldon Whitehous does. If he really does, he should be in the Whitehouse taking over for Obama who won’t come out and tell the public what Whitehouse is telling them in that YouTube video where he testifies about the Climate Denial Beast in session in the Senate. Good man that Whitehouse. My hat’s off to him!

I asked you to post a link to where we can verify your claim that Al Gore predicted you would be under water by now. You didn’t. Instead, you said all you have to do is Google it, and gave a link that says Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in the Summer by 2013. Here’s a clue, John. That doesn’t verify your claim about Gore claiming you would be under water by now.

Here’s another clue, John. If you click on your link, you won’t even find Al Gore predicting that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free by 2013. You will find someone claiming that, and linking to a source. If you follow the link to the source, and the source of that article, and the source of that article, and so on, here’s what you will find. Gore once said that it “may well be” that the Arctic would be ice-free in the Summer as soon as 2013. Why did he say that? Because some scientists had published a paper that gave a range of years when that might happen by, and 2013 was the soonest it could be. Is that a “prediction” that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free by 2013? No, it isn’t.

So here’s the deal. Either you provide a source that actually supports your claim about sea level, or I will delete anything else you post here, unless it is an apology for falsely accusing someone. No more acting like you’re too stupid to understand what I’m saying. No more posting links to unsubstantiated claims about Gore (or anything else). Just support your claim, apologize, or get out.

It’s good sport to spar with climate deniers like John and AJ Foster, but there comes a time to take the wind out of their sails and ban them just like Reddit did. Did you hear about the CEO of Apple telling his conservative climate denial investors to get out of his stock? Climate denial is beginning to be as unacceptable as disrespecting Amercian military service men and women. Anybody who’s studied the Vietnam war era knows how our military people were mistreated back then.

There really isn’t any way to defend Michael Mann’s hockey-stick fraud and nureous perjuries. Comments here have definitely supported Monkton’s allegations.
Mann’s sole defense is changing the subject through the introduction of strawman arguments.

When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?…Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”

I hope you understand that I am not making anything up about
what AL Gore has been saying. I wish he did not say these things
because it makes people laugh at him. So in the long term people
look at this as junk science because what Gore said is not what
is going on. Anybody think he is right that Manhattan will be even under a little water by 2021?

By: John v on March 12, 2014 at 11:26 pm

But you did make up something about what Al Gore has been saying. You claimed that he predicted that someplace would be under water “by now”. And then, after I complained and complained that you provided no source that says anything of the sort, you finally produced a source in which Gore predicted much of Manhattan would be under water sometime between 2021 and 2026. (HINT: It’s only 2014 “by now”.) True to form, you then ask whether anyone thinks Al Gore was right that Manhattan will be under water by 2021, when in fact, he said sometime between 2021 and 2026.

Now, I actually agree with you that Al Gore was probably exaggerating things in this case. I see no reason to believe we will have that much sea level rise that early. But the fact is that you will have to wait until 2026 to say it was a “false prediction”. Do you even comprehend what I’m saying? Do you understand that 2026 hasn’t happened, yet?

If you do a search on my blog, you will find that I have criticized Al Gore in the past for, among other things, overemphasizing worst-case scenarios. I just did it again right here. So if, by 2026, it turns out that he made a false prediction, you won’t hear a peep out of me if you decided to criticize him for that. But right here, right now, you have made a false accusation against Gore. You should apologize.

I’m surprised you would tell me to cool down on the rhetoric. I think everybody in this blog should make things very uncomfortable for climate deniers as possible.

And anyway, I never said Foster should post his tax return on the net. I’d be happy if he sent me and you a copy, of course with address, social security number, etc blacked out. Instead of that, how about just asking him what he does for a living and where he works. Maybe he might tell the truth, or maybe not.

In any case, more and more people every day are waking up to the fact that they have been misled by climate deniers. With extreme weather events on the increase in frequency and severity, not even the most conservative minded or conspiracy minded among us will be able to deny the reality of what is happening.

What’s real depressing and horrifying, is Prof Guy McPherson is saying that climate change is irreversible and the human race will be extinct by 2030. I do think the military and the rich are going to try and ride out the climate disaster in underground bunkers. Good luck to them. It’s only a short term solution unless there are huge underground facilities with all that is needed to sustain life for an indefinite period of time.

[Snipped a crackpot comment about cold generating more CO2. No, it doesn’t. Also snipped another posting of the same link about Al Gore saying the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free by 2013. He didn’t. If you look up the sources, it turns out he said “it may well be” that this would be the case, and he was just repeating what some scientists had said. Even they only said that’s the earliest it could happen. I said all this before, but John is apparently too thick to understand that saying something COULD happen by a certain time isn’t a “prediction” that it WILL happen by that time. He apparently is also incapable of checking sources, because he keeps posting the same link, over and over, claiming that it proves him right.]

Good, go! Don’t come back. Pick up your marbles and go home since you don’t like how Barry’s playing the game. That’s one less denier to put up with in this blog.

I looked the New American link you posted. It’s just another climate denial propaganda site. I scrolled down and saw links to all kinds of denial articles.

This climate science denial has to stop. It stopped at Reddit. The CEO of apple drew a line in the sand when he told climate deniers to get out his stock. And now that climatologist Micheal Mann has taken the CEI, Mark Steyn, and the National Review Online to court for their accusations of committing scientific fraud, this whole climate denial thing will begin to unravel the moment the judge enters a guilty verdict and bangs his gavel. I’m just lovin’ it. It’s just taking too long. I can’t stand the suspense. Oh, and those accusations that Mikey is going bankrupt over court expenses. Dr. Mann is getting legal funding for his court expenses, so he’s not in any financial trouble yet, despite reports to the contrary. See link:

You have not answered mu questions and that tells me you are nothing about science.
Cold must cause more Co2 just think about so much cold this last winter and how many millions of heating systems working double
time than some past years. do you not understand that that makes much more Co2? I am about as green as anybody can be living were I do but so I do care. The Lord may not be a great guy but but he is no worse than Gore. I just saw talk in the news about the damage Gore has done to the green cause. So it looks like I am not alone to not like Gore for his insane talk.
Just so you understand a huge part of the USA has been cold and
because of that millions of buildings have been making double the
Co2 this past winter. So how can you say that cold does not make more Co2. With you it is like you are not able to understand or have
nothing to back up what you say.
You wanted proof of what Gore said and I showed you in HIS OWN WORDS but you just block it and that is sad.
Carry on and in 10 years you will look back to see how wrong you were. Just remember the Sun I thought of you today it was 10 degrees f and the sun melted the ice. Nothing man can do comes close to the power of the sun.
Do not let others including me do your thinking, Look at everything
that is what I do and I look at things like a ice breaker having to come to the aid of another ice breaker. Does seeing that make you think
things are getting warmer?
As long as this is one sided I say good by. It would have been fun if you had anything of value to add but I think you are like Gore and are not able to debate. Gore just talks and that is what I see from this site.
Removing what I say shows you are one sided and that you are not able to even understand how it is cold makes more Co2.

Carry on I will not be back because this is one sided.
You never came back with anything so I guess you have nothing.

1. Like I said, look up the source of Gore’s quotation. Anyone can leave things out of a quotation and make it look worse than it is. I already looked it up myself, so why don’t you?

2. Cold doesn’t make CO2. Your argument is that heating houses with fossil fuels makes CO2 is correct, but you don’t deal with the whole air conditioning issue. You also don’t deal with the fact that most of the CO2 produced isn’t from heating. Only crackpots make arguments like that.

Great! You’re picking up your marbles and going home, but before you do, produce a quote from Gore that does not come from a website with a whole lot of climate denial stuff on it, which means no conservative or conspiratorial links, or links from editorial sections of WSJ or Forbes, which are full of climate disinfo articles. Get the quote from a main stream news source, but certainly not Fox News.

If you are a professional climate denier, than you know that you’re done here. So you are forced to find another venue to spread you climate related and Al Gore disinfo.

Oh, heating with natural gas creates Co2 at the customer end, and also at the coal fired, natural gas, or oil driven power station. Air conditioning, as far as I know just leaks CFC’s at the customer’s house, but still there’s that pesky fossil fuel power station putting Co2 in the air, not to mention that burning coal puts a lot of mercury into the air, one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet.

I thought the terms denier and non believer went out in the 16th C. Glad to see the spoon fed alarmist community is maintaining the tradition of religious heresy. Looking forward to the one climate change model that actually will be correct. Though I won’t be holding my breath.

Consensus isn’t science, it’s politics. And I don’t work for oil or coal. But until the model and the evidence fit together, the model has to be corrected. But I guess skepticism is bad and makes me a heretic. It’s ok. I don’t believe in gods either.

Thank you! I detest this fraud more than any danger I can think of..maybe even Dick Cheney. No..not quite. But this is the most complete thrashing I have seen and very enjoyable reading. Seems I’m 4 years late but I still appreciate your efforts..cheers!

[…] who is “Lord Monckton”? A much celebrated right wing fraud that has been scamming people for decades. His birther nonsense is just another way to raise money for his important work rip people off as […]

Pointing out your lies wouldn’t do any good, as you and your ilk’s tactic now seems to be to spew as many of them as fast as possible, regardless of how many times or how thoroughly they are refuted. You’ve realized you cannot win by facts, so you try to do it by stamina instead, with even more lies, character assassinations and smear campaigns. To actually address any of this to any further extent than what has already been done, would be pointless.

Besides, it is 2014 now, and the global warming scare has more or less been halted. The public has been made aware of the fraudsters and the poor science. It would be a much better use of time to concentrate on disseminating the facts, rather than getting bogged down with you leftists and your personal attacks.

Of course you illustrated my point. My point was that you couldn’t find any actual errors in the above, so you resort to whining about me being a big meanie for chronicling the truth. Which you continue to do.

What’s your point, scientist? Every religion is full of cuckoo beliefs including my own Catholic religion. And what other religions do you expect to find in Utah? The biggest percentage of Mormons are to be found in Utah.
Cuckoo Mormon beliefs? How about magic underwear? That’s a good one. You shouldn’t fault a man for his religious beliefs. I suspect Barry and a majority of Mormons where born into that religion just as I was born into Catholicism.
Why not stick to the issue at hand, the climate crisis.
Go Google arctic methane and Jason Box.
Go to http://www.guymcpherson.com and read his climate summary and update page. It’s been enough to make some people commit suicide with how bad the climate news is. It’s a well put together lengthy essay with links to sources. I wouldn’t kill myself over it. I still have time to f around and do some of the things I want to do before exponential climate change hits the fan.

By: Raymond DeBrane on October 3, 2014 at 6:53 pm

Hi Raymond,

I don’t mind if “scientist” wants to make fun of my religion. It just serves to make him look like more of a clod. He can spend all this time sniping in the comments, but he doesn’t have time to make a single substantive point having to do with the subject of this page. In other words, it annoys him that someone would point out that his hero goes about making up data and pretending to be a member of Parliament, but he doesn’t know how to refute the accusations (because they are in the public record, after all,) so he pretends he doesn’t have time to spend on it, but can’t seem to leave it alone.

Watch and see if he can restrain himself from making another comment in which he doesn’t make any substantive points. I can hear his teeth grinding….

I have absolutely no hope that you people who call opponents of your “theories” “deniers” are ever going to learn how to think scientifically or conduct yourself like normal people. You will forever be submerged in your tribal, religious-like cloud-cuckoo-land where there is only “truth” and heretics who deny that “truth”. Therefore, the only solution is to treat you with your own medicine. It is not a matter of hypocrisy, but of a last resort to efficiently dealing with someone who is obviously never going to improve.

Oh, and if you can’t see the hilariousness of the fact that this self-admitted active subscriber to one of the most dumb and bizarre religious narratives ever to be conceived, also purports to be some kind of scientist among a group of people who frequently call their opponents “deniers”, I can only assume that you are of the same mental configuration.

Capitalist always drag out the words communist, socialist, Marxist, Maoist when they feel that their profits are threatened or they are being taxed. And who but the oil and coal industry’s profits is the most threatened by climate truth and climate change legislation?

Theories? Big Poland coal for years has tried to reposition the science of global warming as an unproven theory, and has spent millions of $$$ and it’s now up to a billion a year on finding a disinfo campaign to BS the public that it’s all a hoax, and it’s modeled after the tobacco industry’s campaign to convince the public that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Big oil has bought republican politicians and some Dems to deny the problem and pass no legislation that would harm oil and coal profits. That’s no religious belief . Those a facts.
I think you are referring to me subscribing to Guy McPherson’s website. Well at least he’s talking science, not capitalist propaganda like you are spouting off.

Karl Popper didn’t “come up with the scientific method,” and his falsificationist philosophy is useful, but not the whole story. If you want to catch up on your philosophy of science, I suggest Samir Okasha’s _Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction_.

In any case, I agree that Raymond tends to be a bit too free with accusing people of being paid by big oil and coal, or whatever.

BTW, thank you for citing Popper. It is the first argument you have made here about anything.

Karl Popper came up with the ‘scientific method’ (hypothetico-deductive method) as the concept is usually understood today, but obviously the history of the philosophy of science has included other takes on the matter too, and obviously Popper didn’t come to the conclusions he did without building on the work of his predecessors.

There is no contradiction here, Barry, and if you’re so thankful for my argument, then why didn’t you try to counter it instead of resorting to the usual attempts at semantic deconstruction and distortions your ilk has become so famous for (see, for example, John Abraham’s colorful “refutation” of Monckton) ?

And your attempt at lecturing me is just pitiful when anyone who knows what ‘science’ actually means can see that the particular religious worldview of undeniable truths and “deniers” – coupled with smear campaigns and attacks ad hominem against those “deniers” – that underlies your bizarre doomsday predictions is the complete antithesis to the direction the epistemological branch of philosophy has steadily taken, particularly in the last 200-300 years or so.

“Scientist,” as far as I can tell, your comment was addressing Raymond’s claim that it is a “fact” coal and oil companies have paid certain people to attack standard climate science, and they have used similar tactics to those of the tobacco industry. It’s difficult to understand what you were getting at, unless you are simply saying that there is no such thing as a “fact” in the absolute sense. Well, I can’t falsify the hypothesis that aliens altered all those IRS forms that indicate who paid whom, I guess.

But if you want a “counter” to your “argument,” maybe this will do. Imre Lakatos, among others, showed that what scientists–even good ones–actually do, can’t exactly be pinned down by Popper’s “falsificationist” logic. The problem is that if some observation doesn’t fit a hypothesis, then clearly something is wrong, but it isn’t necessarily clear what is wrong. Is it something wrong with the main ideas, or with some auxiliary hypothesis that is used to interpret the observations, or something else? Therefore, in practice, scientists don’t usually throw out a hypothesis just because it doesn’t seem to fit with a few observations.

My point is that the picture is even hazier than you paint. It’s true that we can’t assert “facts” in any absolute sense, but that shouldn’t mean we can’t engage in rational argument and weigh evidence. In other words, it’s hard to offer a counterargument when I don’t see the point of your comment.

Now you say that John Abraham is guilty of “distortions” in his debunking of Monckton’s speech. Do you have an example? I mentioned John’s presentation on this page, so at last you have at least referenced something mentioned on this page that you think is in error, or misleading, or whatever. It would be nice if you would tell us why you think so.

No, it isn’t “hazy” at all, Barry. This is in fact *very* clear for those who know anything about it. The principle that you never prove your theory, that you always ask questions and keep your hypothesis under constant pressure – the negative epistemology or Socrates’ “I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing” – had been the basis of Western science for a very long time. It’s only recently that this has been corrupted and replaced by the authoritarian science of anti-denialism – probably in conjuction with the development of higher education for everybody and the subsequent lowering of standards.

By: Scientist on October 6, 2014 at 6:26 am

“The principle that you never prove your theory, that you always ask questions and keep your hypothesis under constant pressure – the negative epistemology or Socrates’ “I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing” – had been the basis of Western science for a very long time.”

I don’t disagree with any of that.

However, I notice that you haven’t indicated anything you find problematic in John Abraham’s presentation (or this page.) Please oblige.

Barry,
Scientist’s somewhat incoherent rants remind me of the shtick that Professor Irwin Corey used to do a long time ago.
It’s been pretty quiet around here the last few days. i wonder if Scientist turned tail and ran after the repeated keyboard poundings I’ve been giving him. He’s like a cripple. He hasn’t got a leg to stand on with people who have wised up about what’s going on like you and me and others who have contributed here.

By: Raymond DeBrane on October 8, 2014 at 1:44 pm

Tell you what, “Scientist”: I’ve got an audience of 35,000 dedicated victims of climate change. If you can convince them to go back to their daily lives instead of massing against climate change, I’ll grant you some credence:

Attacks? How about attacks like death threats against climate scientist Michael Mann, an envelope with white powder sent to his office with an FBI investigation, CEI, NRO and mark Steyn being sued by Mann for calling his hockey stick graph research fraudulent and data manipulated to serve political ends?

Nice capitalist sophistry Sciece guy. Anti denialism? That’s one I hadn’t heard before.
Higher education lowering standards? You are the one lowering standards by promoting climate denial.
Also you managed to dodge responding to my Google suggestions which clearly show that a well organized and generously funded denial industry exists or that evil capitalists exit who are behind all the denial as well as behind ripping out social services from under us, and wanting to take away our unions, minimum wage, public schools, etc etc

Nelson,
Barry could easily kick the Lord’s ass in a debate. But I would rather see Guy McPherson debate him. Guy debated an oil shill , can’t remember his name. The video should be somewhere on http://www.guymcpherson.com. The camera kept recording after the the debate was over and the shill said to Guy that he heard Guy believes that humans will go extinct by 2100. He got noticeably shaken when Guy said he would be more like 2030. Fun fun fun watching the oil shill get so bent out of shape by a real scientist. Add to that fun that Guy had a football coach with him that got up in the face of the shill when he accused a lady scientist there of being in on it for grant money. The oil shill asked the coach if he was trying to start a fight. I was waiting for the coach to punch his lights out, but he didn’t. Too bad, it would have been such good fun to watch. If I find the link, I’ll drop it in this blog.

Earlier in this thread, a climate science denier calling himself “Scientist” said this:

There is no contradiction here, Barry, and if you’re so thankful for my argument, then why didn’t you try to counter it instead of resorting to the usual attempts at semantic deconstruction and distortions your ilk has become so famous for (see, for example, John Abraham’s colorful “refutation” of Monckton) ?

I couldn’t help noticing he’s never responded to Mr. Bickmore’s query. Has something happened to him?

Coward? You don’t even know me. And you deny that you are neither a brainwashed conservative or an energy industry shill. What are you then? It seems you ain’t willing to own up to the only 2 possibilities there are. So what other possibilities are there?

Me, I’m just a guy who about 10 years ago who stumbled into a Huffington Post article that said the oil industry dumps millions of $$$ int climate denial to B.S. the public and kill legislation in Congress to deal with global warming. So I keep on searching the internet for more and came up with the Koch Brothers and their funding of climate denial. And I found several links from this year that said all energy industry totals combined, about a billion $$$ is being spent on climate denial.

I can’t take the time to list everything I read, but I will include my exposure to the stunning and shocking predictions about NTE made by Prof Guy McPherson. I’ve seen his videos and read his climate change summary and update page.

I’m a persistent critic of the methodology of global warming research. This position places me at odds with proponents and opponents of the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) alike. Monckton is an opponent.

In debating Monckton I find that he often begins his argument with a disparaging description of my character, an example of an ad hominem fallacy. Often he draws a conclusion from an equivocation, an example of an equivocation fallacy. Seemingly, were he to be deprived of recourse to one or another fallacies, Monckton would have little to say.

and being a dum idiot that you are .you keep going on about monckton not debaiting .any one . but what about al gore . he wont debate any one will he . who do you work for al gore. you have no proff man made climate change is real

97% of all climatologists have presented data showing AGW is for real. So how can you still be in denial? Answer is as I’ve said before, you’re either an indoctrinated and brainwashed conservative or an energy industry shill. I’d rather think you are the latter rather than think that you could be a total brainwashed dumb shit.

ok i live in england and i work as a courier .so thats out of the way .you say lord monckton wont debate you with live emails . then how dum are you . he gets hundreds of emails from people like you every day . how the hell do you expect him to answer all those emails ,he will be on the is computer 24 hours a day .and why would he debate you who ,the hell are you. as for the so called climatologists . who do they get there money from . maybe they get there money from oil companys like al gore does . you know when he sold is tv company to al jazeera ,who get all there money from qatar ,not only will al gore not debate monckton ,but he will not debate any scientist as well . ,monckton as said he will debate any scientist . and al gore , i want a debate between gore and monckton . dont bother to reply . because this is getting know where . so goodbye you brainwashed dumb shit . see we can all do that cant we

In case you ever do an update, here is another nutty claim of our dear lord.

“Official survey after official survey had shown that homosexuals had an average of 500-1,000 partners in their sexually active lifetime, and that some had as many as 20,000. One wonders how they found time for anything else.”

[…] “contrails”. Why would anyone who claims to be against climate engineering post the baseless opinions of individuals like Monckton? Opinions and ideology must be exchanged for research and hard […]

[…] other trade, not public relations. This means that people like Harris, Joanne Nova, Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton, S. Fred Singer, and others can focus exclusively on misinforming the public while the people who […]

[…] campaign by people and organisations like Exxon and Koch brothers as well as the way certain attention seekers continue to spout the same spurious twaddle week in week out even after being corrected. As with […]

[…] but those involved are the creme-de-la-creme of the climate science denial movement. Keynotes from Christopher Monckton who’s Clerk – James Rowlatt – once started responding to comments on his behalf. […]

In the german climate skeptical blog EIKE (www.eike-klima-energie.eu/), Lord Moncton is listed as member of the advisory board (Fachbeirat) as
“Lord Christopher Monckton Viscount of Brenchley, Journalist, Cambridge University (England)”. It seems that it is claimed that Monckton is member of the University of Cambridge. At other place Monckton himself calls Cambridge University his “alma mater”. I couldn’t find his name in the personal registers of the university.

(MUST READ: HOW I GOT CURED FROM MY HIV VIRUS) in need am happy I was diagnosed of HIV in 2014 and I have tried all possible means to get cure but all to no avail, until i saw a post in a health forum about a herbal doctor from West Africa who prepare herbal medicine to cure all kind of diseases including herpes virus, at first i doubted if it was real but decided to give it a try, when i contact this herbal doctor via his email: bennngeorge001@gmail.com, he prepared a herbal medicine and sent it to me via courier service, when i received this herbal medicine, he gave me step by instructions on how to apply it, when i applied it as instructed, i was cured of this deadly virus HIV within 3weeks of usage, I am now free from the virus, i was tasted negative. He also told me he cures so many disease like cancer Influenza, coronary artery, lower respiratory infections,Trachea, bronchus, HIV/AIDS, Herpes, Kidney failure, Arthritis, Diabetes, Hypertension, Stroke, Obesity, Infertility/Impotency, Cancer, Eye Problem, Skin Problem, Fibroid Tumor, Ulcer, Prostate Problem, Asthma, Weight Management, Gonorrhea/Staphylococcus, Candide, Low sperm can, Weak erection, Weak ejaculation, Pile, Elephantiasis, Skin Infection, Paralysis, If you want your ex back and many more he listed. please if you are suffering from any of these diseases contact this great herbal doctor called Dr.BEN on his Email: bennngeorge001@gmail.com. You can also call him on his mobile number or Add him on whats app via:+22896695417

I just heard him speak – Lord Monckton – and he does not seem to hold the opinion that you give here – he must have changed his mind unless some have been misunderstood him, but he’s an expert on finance in govt and how to balance budgets, lower taxes and make it really work without putting up the debt, etc.That is his real expertise. He did it for Britain under Thatcher.

I watched the congress appearance and Lord Monckton never said he sat in the house of Lords. In fact he explained he was a hereditary Lord who was not allowed to sit in the house, as they were all removed by the Labour party.
You do not give act and section of the “snake oil” patent. So I doubt you have got that information first hand. Lord Monckton has severe Graves Disease so he may well have been trying out all kinds of things to reduce its effects. He never claims to be a scientist, but he does represent many who cannot present this stuff themselves for fear of loosing their jobs, such is the prejudice against anyone who questions the narrative on climate change. After the first three paragraphs where you are quoting a newspaper I lost interest in your diatribe. Lord Monckton is an intelligent man and comes across as such, which is why I think you started this just to discredit him. It is good and healthy to have open frank discussions and to question and question again all scientific claims. Science is built on the shoulders of others and anyone who claims science is fixed is either mad or evil. We cannot and do not know all there is to know about the climate. One thing is certain H2O drives it not CO2.

Well said. Strangely for such a madman and fraudster as described in this nasty little website he has already been proven correct regarding climate during the 7 years of the above thread with more and more information coming to light of fraud in climate “research”, very akin in fact to the data picking of the Cold Fusion fraudsters at MIT in the 90’s who were unmasked by Gene Mallove and colleagues and Robert Shankland’s data picking from Dayton Miller’s results to show Einstein was correct when the results showed the opposite. Those who besmirch Monckton’s strange character in order to undermine his sound arguments look more and more desperate and ridiculous as every month goes by. People who push such lies such as Al Gore etc etc etc that led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of poor people around the world these past couple of decades must surely one day be held to account for those deaths. I look forward to seeing their trials on TV as surely that next step can’t be far off with Trump coming to power. As Obama said elections have consequences and so does knowingly telling wilful lies leading to the deaths of millions. There is no longer any excuse for believing or for pushing this lie that mankind is responsible for climate change to anything but a miniscule extent but there must be legal consequences for those who lied to us and robbed us of tax monies or our lives and who continue to lie to us.

assuming all the above is 100% correct, I’ll still accept Monkton’s work for the simple reason that …. who else is there on the other side of the debate? On a complex question, there must be a legitimate other side. But with torrents of money flowing to climate orthodoxy, what scientist would get any grants for trying to prove that humans aren’t responsible? If one tried to publish some contrary result they would 1) not get published and 2) not get another grant. You might argue that the oil companies would support such a person but since they cannot do it openly, it wouldn’t be much help. I’ll leave you with a quote on this: “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” Voltaire i believe. In the meantime, regardless of the above, I’ll keep thinking that its all a scam to get a carbon tax flowing, eventually to the UN, the nice honest UN! Four cents a liter is just the beginning. And if it gets warm enough to raise cattle on Greenland as Vikings once did, that’s ok with me.

So you accept Monckton’s work because it’s the best they’ve got “on the other side of the debate”? Maybe that should instead indicate to you that he is an extremist, and the legitimate “debate” is far away from him.

Also, you should know that 1) they do raise cattle on Greenland, and 2) Greenland isn’t the world.

As for Moncton, i’d just call him lonely and excuse his ‘extremism’
as you call it, on the kind of frustration anyone would be subject to in his position. Thus, I’ll forgive his sins such as ad hominems, while noting that your side loves to ridicule any and all on the other side.

Who is the real extremist when one considers the effect of the climate scam on humanity? Being surrounded by like minded believers, sycophants, hangers on, etc, (suckers in my mind), its hard to look extreme, but by adding draconian policies that won’t do anything to reduce earth’s temperature, to an already stressed geo-politics, you certainly look extreme to me.

I support many green initiatives, but the climate thing is a simple scam. Its a power and money grab as shown by the way governments are squishing ordinary folk under green taxes, energy boondoggles, FIT scams, etc, plus the entire structure of the new treaties and agreements – all while producing NO benefit except to opportunists like Musk and NO temperature reduction.

We must do more the extremists shout. But even if EVERY human on earth was euthanized (as govts are moving toward), would it do any ‘good’? Where is the proof that reduction is possible? Or even desirable, if one is not afraid of an earth that has changed since the beginning. More CO2 may even HELP us feed the planet. Just we have to stop our physically destructive ways…. Dragnetting, deforestation, overfertilization, endless suburbia, habitat loss, etc. But you and your extremist band is shouting about carbon so loudly, these far simpler more obvious and affordable solutions get ignored and forgotten.

Why?

If i answer that, you will accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. Do you really think David Suzuki, David Koch, their buddy Soros and our Trudeau will really stop jet setting their way to self aggrandizement? Why haven’t we heard much about the effect of all those contrails on earth’s temperature. Hey, if you stop all these green/rich dudes flying around so much, maybe I’ll believe. Maybe I’ll believe you if you tell us what YOU DO to lower your carbon footprint? Actions speak louder than words, except the action of making big bucks peddling the climate machine.

Suffocated by the cloying dull voice of propaganda right across the political party pre Brexit – I was delighted to discover Lord Monckton. At last a man of integrity. A free thinker! I do not claim to be an expert in climate change – my world is theatre and the voice but the truth has an unmistakable ring.

Christopher Monckton’s voice has a refreshing vibrance. As a shooting star he takes the audience to the highest point and injects with his wisdom an intensity of goodness. He’s the light of the world and too much of a character to be bought by any one. Unlike other bribed politicians Monckton makes his own money.

His lordship is brilliant and articulate. His accent alone is a joy to listen to. (George Osborn misread and underestimated Jo Public. No they don’t want to patronized by some toff trying to drop his H’s in order to be heard)

So listen to Monckton’s speeches and learn. They are brilliant, in-depth, scholarly and stirring. He delivers his message with masterful skill with excellent use of timing and vocal variety. He has gentle kindness and authority and people respect him.

You claim to be fascinated with him BB but that does not come through. I expected an affectionate balanced account not a twisted smear campaign. You say nothing about his achievements and even when you force yourself to acknowledge something he’s done – it’s said with a mocking reluctance.

Vicki, it would be nice to be you, so I wouldn’t have to do any work to figure out when someone is telling the truth. As you no doubt read, however, I did manage to personally check on some of Monckton’s claims. And they were unmistakably false. Brazenly false.

Anyway, good luck living the rest of your life with your “whatever sounds good to me must be true” kind of philosophy.

BB it is nice being me! I find people of quality uplifting without the burden of seething envy and spite. I haven’t go the time or energy to go right through all these depressingly petty posts but I have seen enough to see through your low cunning – applying a formula of trickery where no one could shine – not even God. Could you survive this same distorted trickery? It does show one thing. MONCKTON IS A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH.

Your claim about even God not surviving my scrutiny only makes any sense if 1) God did the same kinds of things I accuse Monckton of, or 2) Monckton didn’t do the kinds of things I accuse him of. I assume you mean the latter, because most people who believe in God don’t take such a dim view of him. So what, exactly, did I accuse him of that you think is wrong?

In your desperation to discredit the brilliant Monckton you are prepared to wallow and remain in the dirt – grubbing around for little snippets that you might be able to distort. You have done this over and over and your examples are not convincing and don’t prove anything. And in your stupidity you don’t realise that you actually drawing attention to him.

Look at his eternity puzzle. A brilliant conception. Great for the society. It got people using their talents and brains rather than scratching a lottery ticket. He contributed to the economy. It was a SUCCESS. It was imaginative. You CANNOT gloss over that. Have you ever worked in advertising? This sort of big project takes hard work and dedication. He’s original. He pulled it off.

Then you come along, a teeny, tiny mosquito. Piously buzzing around waiting to zoom in on any minutiae to discredit him! Apparently he said he was prepared to pretend he was selling his house to pay for the prize money! So what! The fact he told the paper later on shows how guileless he is. I don’t think you understand publicity at all. You are a geek. You have to enter the spirit of the thing. Creating an excitement is part of it.

Then bothering the great man with such utter trivia. No wonder Monkton told you to GET LOST. A man like that does’t want a mosquito buzzing around him with that irritating high pitched whine. Someone needs to roll up a newspaper and squat you flat.

You complain about how I didn’t praise him enough for his Eternity Puzzle invention (which I do think is cool,) but then latched onto the fact that he admittedly lied about his personal finances to sell more puzzles. I don’t understand publicity! you say. Well, I do understand it well enough to know that some people lie to gain publicity, and some people don’t. I also understand that some people lie, then cover it up so they don’t get caught, whereas others brag about their exploits. Apparently, that kind of thing doesn’t matter to you , so hey, whatever rows your boat.

If you are so concerned about my buzzing, why not write to Monckton and tell him he should sue me for defamation? He has said he would in the past, but I’ve never gotten any mail from his lawyers. (Hint: You can’t sue someone for defamation if what they said was demonstrably true.)

Hello Moth, You are WRONG! I think you are – excuse me while I quote YOU – a conspiratard.

I am certainly not a sock puppet. You can take my word for it or I can prove it someway. I understand though that you are in the business of discrediting people but you need to be a little more discerning if you want to make a career of it. Judging by your derelict blog – you haven’t.

Btw, didn’t you read that Monckton got 3.5 million hits in one single month on youtube for an excerpt from his 4 minute speech? As well as all the cloned copies. And yet you find it hard to believe that anyone would defend him?

Beautiful! Thank you very much for your response – you certainly made my day.

It’s amazing if you genuinely are “Vicki” – an average person who considers information and informants fairly.

You sound like Monckton himself, which all the snipes and show-boating.

I don’t want to make a “career of it”. I did make a career actually in environmental science – including meteorology / atmospheric chemistry and energy / climate research. I didn’t care enough about the trolls to waste my time on my blog and so turned my full energy to my personal interests.

If he is so good, why would he need defending? His work wouldn’t need defending – especially riddled with name calling. Constantly referring to his popularity and successes, also means nothing. David Wolfe is popular, Spirit Science is popular, Answers in Genesis is popular, etc etc etc. It’s known as “argumentum ad populum”.

All that matters is;

– You don’t like Barry’s post why?

– If it’s personal, that’s irrelevant and your only obligation is to skip the site.

– If it’s wrong, demonstrate it (avoiding name calling at the previously mentioned argumentum ad populum).

– You claim to be just an average, well informed fan of Monckton, but I insist that you’re not. You language is too much like his. You take too much pride in his supposed successes, popularity, strength and intelligence to be what you claim. You’re either him under another name, on a lonely night at home or an employee / volunteer working on his behalf. I’ve come across it before.

The thing about empirical truth is that it’s impersonal and apathetic. Good science emulates. Politics is the opposite. It’s very personal and successful candidates inspire empathy / enthusiasm for their ideas.

Monckton doesn’t do science. From the absurd mathematical errors, to his journal choices / take downs by real scientists to his published articles (and his lack of scientific training), it’s clear that science is not his forte.

But he is emotive. He does make it personal (eg. Agenda 21 and the One World Government, scientists telling us how to live our lives etc). Empirical evidence comes second to the conspiracy – and only fragments of that evidence that fit the narrative.

He brings politics to a scientific debate – dropping smoke bombs – and does nothing but leave the room more ignorant than they were before.